THE Sindh government recently began the legislative process to change the way the province’s public universities are managed and administered. The selection of vice chancellors (VCs) is already routed through the Sindh government, though the federal Higher Education Commission (HEC) foots the bill. While the teachers’ representative bodies are part of this ongoing process, present and prospective students — ostensibly vital stakeholders — are completely absent.

With student unions nonexistent, alternative ways of seeking their input are not devised. In this apparent power struggle between the federal and provincial governments, issues of quality of education, equitable access (especially for the poor), autonomy (or lack thereof), medium- and long-term human resource needs assessment in higher education seem absent from the debate.

Public universities have so far functioned according to laws that lay down a clear mandate, academic structure, nature and extent of operation as well as the jurisdictional framework. From departments to the institution, an overall administrative and academic skeleton is normally prescribed. Boards of studies, faculties and research bodies, academic councils, finance and planning committees, university development working parties, syndicates and senates are the organs that typically run routine affairs. Almost all are managed either entirely or by a majority of professors and staff/officers.

Until recently, the VC was appointed by the governor, who is also the chancellor. As the chief executive, the office of the VC used to be autonomous and powerful. Not even the governor could directly exercise control — the only dire action he could take was to sack and appoint a new VC. Now, a committee and the chief minister are to interview aspirants and make recommendations to the governor. While the VC generally used to be a senior professor, professionals, bureaucrats and even military personnel have also been appointed.

Is Sindh throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

This approach has generated mixed results, whereas universities with competent and forthright VCs have shown remarkable progress. As such, no visible lacuna that merited a legal and administrative overhaul appears to exist. Yet thoughtless revamping in the name of ‘reforms’ is a prevalent practice; institutions are created without feasibility and later dumped without justification.

The approach proposed for managing universities is a case in point. While many assumptions are cited about their dysfunction, no scientific study of management and outputs has been carried out. Neither are there valid criteria for ranking universities’ performance. In contrast, most progressive developing countries have created a monitoring mechanism to help raise academic standards.

Structurally, decision-making in universities is reasonably democratic. Represen­tatives of teachers and other cadres are elected through established procedures. If there is any shortcoming, the procedure can be looked at, but fiddling with a working system without premise is illogical. It may also be useful to note that, in some public universities, senates/syndicates have convened regularly. While this reflects a serious failure of those administrations, it also makes the case for testing the validity of the working of a body before drastically altering it.

As university funding and grant disbursement keeps all under the strict tutelage of the HEC, universities were left with no choice but to follow the prescriptions of a federal agenda. Although provincially-governed, financial control created a sizable niche for federal intervention, which obviously led to academic and even administrative subservience. One can observe that administrations are overloaded with pa­­per­­work in the name of quality assurance, as teams from Isla­mabad frequently descend to ‘monitor’ the universities’ functioning. While quality assurance is desirable, endless paperwork simply reduces options to achieve it.

It may be appropriate for the Sindh government and legislature to reconsider its move to alter the governance mechanism of the universities. As long as the HEC remains the main provider of funds, it may be incorrect on the part of the provincial government to completely eradicate its role in decision-making processes.

If the Sindh government really wishes to make a difference, it should make efforts to help develop endowments that can be managed independently by the syndicates. In this way, universities will also acquire working independence. Almost all the prestigious universities around the world are structured in this manner. Additionally, the composition of existing syndicates and senates should also draw extended membership from society, industry and businesses relevant to a university for enhancing their effectiveness and outreach.

The writer is a professor and dean, Faculty of Architecture and Management Sciences, NED University, Karachi.

Published in Dawn, March 29th, 2018