For higher education a landmark initiative

THE government has reiterated its commitment to investing in human capital by announcing the doubling of funding to public sector universities over the next three years. This is the most significant enhancement of resource allocation for higher education in the last fifty years.

This decision was made on the basis of recommendations finalized by the Steering Committee on Higher Education (SCHE), which was appointed by the president on March 15, 2002. The Task Force on Improvement of Higher Education in Pakistan and the Study Group on Science and Technology, which submitted their recommendations to the president on January 11, 2002, laid the groundwork for this decision. The SCHE was tasked with the responsibility of developing a practical implementation plan to put into action the recommendations of the Task Force and the Study Group.

In recent days, a few articles have raised questions about the recommendations. These comments appear to be based on incomplete or incorrect information or understanding. The following description of the SCHE recommendations is offered to provide factual information to the public and to set the record straight.

From the very outset, the focus of the SCHE is on the enhancement of the quality of higher education and the realization of the vision set out by the Task Force, namely to “transform the institutions of higher education into world class seats of learning, equipped to foster high-quality education, scholarship, and research, to produce enlightened citizens with strong moral and ethical values that build a tolerant and pluralistic society rooted in the culture of Pakistan”.

Further, as emphasized by the Study Group, knowledge is becoming a leading factor of production and economic development around the world. Thus, we must take steps to create, master and mobilize knowledge for the betterment of our society. The central emphasis is on the strengthening of public universities and ensuring enhanced access of Pakistani students to higher education, regardless of their economic background.

On August 16 the SCHE made a presentation of its findings and its final draft report to President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. The president fully endorsed the findings and recommendations of the SCHE and asserted the government’s full resolve to bring about meaningful reforms in the system of higher education. In a significant expression of this resolve, and a departure from normal practice, he acceded to the recommendation of the Steering Committee and announced an immediate increase of one billion rupees in the allocation for public sector universities in the current fiscal year. He also approved in principle the recommendation that the current resource base of public sector universities be doubled over a period of three years, through an increase of Rs. 5.9 billion representing a 140 per cent increase in the government’s allocation.

This was the first time that a task force report has been implemented immediately after the approval of the recommendations contained in it. One major recommendation was the establishment of a Higher Education Commission (HEC) with a facilitating and quality assurance role. The president has also appointed the chairman of the HEC and approved the HEC ordinance within a period of a few months.

The approach adopted by the SCHE in formulating its recommendations could prove instructive in public policy-making. This approach was based on the premise that no reforms can be implemented unless the university community has the motivation and will to implement them. Thus the SCHE took great pains to ensure the ownership of the key stakeholders of the universities.

Although there remains a divergence of views on a few recommendations, namely those pertaining to the reform of governance and management structures, there is consensus in the country on the need for reform and the basic principles enunciated in the Task Force report. Many faculty representatives and vice-chancellors express the apprehension that a totally new system could become an object of abuse or a focal point of conflict. Some of these concerns are understandable.

Over half a century of the government’s consistent failure to deliver on promises will make sceptics of even the most diehard optimists. However, the benchmarks of success or failure for an agency should be based on that agency’s performance, and not its predecessors. The increased allocations to higher education serve merely as the first indicators of the success of the SCHE’s work.

The greatest impact of the increased funding will come in the shape of increased faculty salaries. Employees of public universities will not only receive significant increases in salaries, but also receive other benefits through the delinking of their salaries from the basic pay scales of government employees. This represents a significant change in the government’s approach. The SCHE has recommended that a new service structure involving tenure-track appointments accompany the higher salaries, including periodic performance evaluations and peer reviews in order to ensure that excellence is rewarded.

Understandably, this has led to fears amongst faculty members regarding the potential misuse of the performance review mechanism. To ensure that this would not be the case, the Steering Committee has inserted two additional safeguards. First, it has recommended that the existing faculty will have the option to retain the full slate of benefits, including job security, currently admissible to them.

New faculty members will automatically be inducted into the new tenure-track system, through which a permanent status will be achieved only after extensive peer reviews and performance evaluations. No existing faculty or staff member will be subjected to a unilateral withdrawal of existing rights and privileges.

Second, at the invitation of the SCHE, faculty members from public sector universities have drawn up the model criteria and procedures for peer review in order that all necessary safeguards are inserted in service conditions. This will represent the most positive and significant change in the pay and service conditions of university faculty and staff in the history of the country.

However, SCHE is fully conscious of the fact that to improve the quality of higher education, increased funding, though necessary, is not a sufficient condition. It has therefore devoted considerable thought to the quality and professional work environment of faculty and has recommended a number of steps for the development of faculty and their involvement in various tiers of decision making in the university.

The package of reforms is perhaps the most wide-ranging and holistic plan to have been developed by the government for higher education. Accordingly, on the SCHE’s recommendation, the government has decided that the package will be introduced in a phased manner. Salient features of the reform package include:

* The introduction of an effective system of checks and balances in the governance and management structures and processes of universities. These include the appointment procedures of senate/university board members and vice-chancellors, as well as their profiles and qualifications.

* The empowerment of faculty by giving them a participatory role in running the affairs of the university through a decentralized system of governance and management.

* Widening of access to higher education for students from underprivileged economic backgrounds through the establishment and rationalization of need-based financial aid for deserving students in the shape of scholarships that cover both tuition and actual living costs.

* An increase in the annual government grant to universities by Rs. 5.6 billion over a three-year period. In the first year, an additional allocation of one billion rupees will be provided through reallocation from existing heads. In year 2003-04, the total additional allocation will rise to Rs. 5.3 billion, and in 2004-05, to Rs. 5.6 billion. This will more than double the baseline of government grants. The aim is to ensure that at least all recurring expenditure is funded by the government. Today only 55 per cent of the recurring costs are met by government grants and the universities themselves are left to raise the remaining 45 per cent.

* The streamlining of procedures for disbursing allocations to universities in the shape of base, performance based and need related grants.

* The establishment of offices for research management in order to ensure an increase in both the quantitative investments in, and qualitative allocations for, research and development in public universities. The initial focus of these offices would be to establish a culture of R&D, following which they would be expected to lead the way for universities to be at the forefront of exploration and discovery in science, technology and the humanities.

* The establishment of linkages with industry and career services centres in order to provide feed-back on curriculum to the faculty that is in sync with market needs and trends, and, more importantly, to provide students with information and skills that will enhance their employability, and improve communication and presentation skills.

* Most important, the introduction of guidelines to ensure that each and every one of the SCHE’s recommendations are flexible enough to be adapted by different universities in various provinces, but stringent enough to not be misused or become open to nepotism and corruption.

The work of the SCHE thus represents a comprehensive set of recommendations that will ensure the readjustment of public education priority to quality and provide wider access to deserving students regardless of their economic status.

The writer is Chairman, Steering Committee on Higher Education, and President, The Aga Khan University.

A war America’s allies oppose

US forces are rapidly massing in the Gulf to invade Iraq. Four heavy brigades have been positioned near Iraq, a huge new air complex is now operational in Qatar, and American special forces are active in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The White House is hoping its threats of war will provoke a coup against Saddam Hussein by the Iraqi army. But if one does not come, the Bush administration shows every sign of plunging into an unprovoked war that the rest of the world will view as blatant aggression.

Even America’s closest allies are appalled by the tide of warmongering and jingoism that has engulfed the United States. Bush’s recently proclaimed doctrine of ‘pre-emptive intervention’ anywhere on earth is nothing less than a frightening revival of the old imperialist Brezhnev Doctrine of 25 years ago that called for Soviet intervention wherever socialism was threatened.

‘Bush, himself the most intellectually backward American president of my political lifetime, is surrounded by advisers whose bellicosity is exceeded only by their political, military and diplomatic illiteracy.’ Such were the stinging words of Gerald Kaufman, the highly respected former foreign affairs spokesman of Britain’s ruling Labour Party, America’s closest ally.

Bush’s accelerating campaign to invade Iraq and turn it into another US oil protectorate is also provoking a storm of outrage across Europe, the Mideast, and Asia where people believe pollution and climate change are far bigger and more urgent threats than the boogeyman of Baghdad.

There are two important exceptions. First, Israel. Some days ago, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, sounding like he was giving orders to a subordinate, demanded Bush speed up plans to attack Iraq. Right on cue, American supporters of Sharon’s far-right Likud Party, led by the Bush administration’s Rasputin, Richard Perle, intensified their clamour to send American GIs to fight Iraq.

These bloodthirsty ‘neo-conservatives’ — most of whom evaded military service in their own country — currently dominate the Pentagon and exercise a virtual monopoly on US media commentary of the Mideast. They are ardently backed by Armageddon-seekers of the Christian loony far right.

Senior Republican Senator Chuck Hagel spoke for many when he asked if Perle was so eager to attack, why didn’t he join the first assault wave against Baghdad. Former national security adviser to Bush’s father, Brent Scowcroft, warned an attack on Iraq would be a disastrous mistake.

Meanwhile, in Congressional hearings recently, former UN Iraq arms inspector Scott Ritter courageously stated what many Americans believe, but dare not say: “A handful of ideologues have hijacked the national security policy of the United States for their own ambitions.” Ritter insisted Iraq was totally disarmed and no threat to the US or Mideast. The Bush administration — more precisely, the people pulling its strings — do not want renewed inspections of Iraq, Ritter said, they only want war.

A torrent of propaganda, lies and half-truths about Iraq have been pouring from the White House in a campaign reminiscent of old Soviet agitprop. The government-appointed ‘defence’ team representing accused 9/11 plot member Zacharias Moussaui, reportedly urged him to falsely claim that Iraq was behind the attack. Moussaui refused. The head of Czech intelligence said there were no contacts in Prague between Iraq and Al Qaida, a key Bush reason for attacking Iraq. CIA veterans and European intelligence officials scoff at White House claims that Iraq is a threat to the world.

The other exception to worldwide outrage over America’s Mideast policies was Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaida. In 1998, Osama carefully outlined his grand strategy to: a) liberate Palestine; b) drive the US occupying troops from Saudi Arabia; and c) end the punishment of Iraq’s people. To attain these goals, Osama bin Laden planned to provoke the US into a large number of fruitless military involvements that would wear out the US and bleed its military and financial power.

Afghanistan, which costs American taxpayers five billion dollars monthly, is the first step. Iraq, whose leader is hated by Osama bin Laden — a hatred equally returned by Saddam — will be number two. Then, Iran, Syria, Libya — all also on Perle’s hit list — and so on until a host of Lilliputian conflicts tie down the American imperial giant.

George Bush, who takes pride in not reading books, and calls Greeks ‘Grecians,’ is charging like a Texas bull into the trap set for him by both Osama bin Laden and General Sharon. Israel has been trying for 20 years to get the US to go to war against the Arabs and Iran, knowing this will permanently enlist America’s vast wealth and power in its cause, and permanently alienate the US from the Islamic world.

The extremists in both camps need one another. The main beneficiary of the 9/11 attacks on the US was Israel’s Sharon. Bin Laden would never have achieved notoriety and a wide following without Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians.

If ever the United States needed real friends, it is now. Real friends, like Canada, Germany, and France, are trying to deter the empty, misled George Bush and his hijacked cabinet from committing an outright aggression that risks plunging the Mideast — into chaos, even nuclear war.— Copyright Eric S. Margolis, 2002.

Lost and found

A FUNNY thing happened on the way to the bank. WorldCom discovered it had lost $3.3 billion of its money.

Even in the world of funny bookkeeping, this is considered a lot of money. The question everyone is asking is: Where did they lose it?

When I heard there was a finder’s fee, I joined the search. I called my accountant and said, “If someone lost $3 billion, where would be a likely place to look?”

“Where have you looked so far?”

I said, “I looked in the attic.”

He then said, “It’s too obvious. The WorldCom executives know that’s the first place the FBI would look.”

I said, “The money could be hidden somewhere in a swamp in Mississippi, where the WorldCom headquarters are located.”

“I don’t think so,” he said. “They have hound dogs down there trained to sniff lost money.”

I said, “You can’t just lose $3 billion.”

“Suppose,” he said, “the big shots, including Bernard Ebbers, lost the $3 billion at the racetrack?”

“It’s possible. The ones at WorldCom who have been arrested never missed a day at the Hialeah race track.”

“We know they bought houses, boats, land and airplanes. But it still would not add up to the money that has disappeared,” my accountant said.

“Did you ever think about the $3 billion being in Switzerland? If I were a WorldCom executive and was tried for cooking the books, I’d send the money out of the country.”

“But how could I possibly find it if it was in Switzerland?” I asked.

“It would not be easy. Finding laundered money never is.”

“The trouble is, if I look for the money in Switzerland, WorldCom could already have transferred it to Bermuda.”

He said, “It’s the dirty offshore money trick. While you are looking in Bermuda, they have already sent the money to the Grand Cayman Islands.”

I said, “Let’s give them the benefit of doubt. Suppose WorldCom really forgot the money was there. A whistleblower from their accounting department said the $3 billion was listed on the books as ‘flowers and cocktails parties,’ when it should have been listed as ‘miscellaneous petty cash.’ She was fired for mentioning it.” “Either that or the company’s accountants made a mistake by putting money in the wrong column.”

I haven’t given up the search. I will split the finder’s fee with anyone who has knowledge of where the money is, but indicted employees may not compete.

—Dawn/Tribune Media Services