Archives

by Mahinda Abeywardane, Former Registrar, University of Sri Jayewardenepura

Graduation Day at a university

The question of student violence in universities has become an important subject for public discussion after the recent death of a student at the University of Sri Jayewardanepura, due to student violence.

There has been student unrest or student violence in the universities for the last 2 or 3 decades, and various remedial measures were taken by the respective governments and university authorities at different stages but they were ineffective to prevent student violence, now prevalent in universities.

I have read a number of proposals submitted by Vice Chancellors, higher education officials and the public which could be summarized under the following headings.

(1) Re introduction of Marshal system
(2) Internal security service
(3) Police post in universities
(4) Effective enforcement of the normal law of the land within the university premises.

The above proposals are not new proposals but these systems were in operation in the past in the universities. Some of the measures were successful at various times in the past, and it does not mean that re-introduction of the systems that were successful in the past is the solution to the present problem, as the university environment has changed and it is quite different now. Therefore a careful study should be made before implementing the measures which were successful in the past in the present university environment.

The Marshal system was very successful from the inception of University of Ceylon, until 1970. The persons recruited as Marshals were very competent, and had excelled in sports and had some police training. Some of the Marshals in the pre 1970 period at the University of Peradeniya were boxing champions. They were respected by the students and were effective. A long with the Marshal system a Proctor system also functioned in respect of student discipline.

The Marshal system existed in the Universities of Vidyodaya and Vidyalankara at that time in the late 1950s 1960s.

In the 1970s the university environment changed rapidly. This is the beginning of the United Student Movement in Sri Lanka like the trade union movement. In the pre-1970 period students did radical politics but it was confined to conventional politics, and there was no organized student movement like the later University Students Federation joining all students councils of universities, at that time.

The University of Sri Lanka Act No. 2 of 1972 created one university for the country and the students of all universities organized themselves as one federation.

The student movement became a powerful force in the 1970s, and they began to dictate terms to the university authorities and the university authorities had to change the role of Proctors to that of student counsellors. Now the students in large numbers with a mob mentality backed by their political leaders started a role where they became masters of their own destiny, setting their needs through force by the use of sheer number. as a result, violence and indiscipline arose in the universities. The university authorities played a role of accommodating as far as possible everything students wanted and compromised in disciplinary matters as well.

The marshals who were effective earlier became very ineffective. With the change on the student environment they became mere spectators. It is the student numbers that matter now.

The re-introduction of Marshal system with whatever training you give will not succeed in the present context as long as the students use force to get their needs and control those who try to oppose them through violence. How can a few Marshals control such large groups of students who do not possess any powers or authority?

In some other countries the Marshal system or internal security system is still very successful because they exercise certain powers and authority and they are in a position to control students in the respective universities which have a student population tenfold larger than our universities. In Australia and in the United States the University Marshal or the security officers have certain police powers where they can even prosecute a student in court of law.

Internal security service

The University Grants Commission introduced an internal security service to universities in the 1980s with the collapse of the Marshal system. This security system was organized by the Senate House of the University of Sri Lanka. A retired senior Police Commissioner was in charge of this internal security system and they were trained, and it had a good organization structure. The concept was good.

The universities were informed that the security officers will not be kept at any university for more than 3 years which never happened and ultimately ended with the security staff getting trade union rights and they resorted to strike as well with the rest of the non academic staff. The internal security staff too were ineffective in the face of an organized student movement and became mere spectators of student violence and they played the role of helping the injured rather than preventing clashes.

You still have traces of this system in the universities. The internal security was not only ineffective in managing student discipline but also they were ineffective in protecting the university property. When university property gets lost the universities had to take disciplinary action against the security personnel at tremendous cost and resulting very often on the losses not being recovered.

Due to the failure of the internal security system in their dual role of helping to maintain student discipline and protection of university property, the universities started employing private security instead of internal security towards the latter part of 1980s.

This system is in operation now in universities with a few internal security officers as Marshals. This system is ineffective in respect of assisting student discipline but useful in their role of protecting university property. Under this system the universities were able to recover any losses to the university in respect of property and this is the only advantage in contracting private security firms.

The establishment of police post in universities is also a remedy which has been used in the past. I can recount such police posts in the Universities of Peradeniya and Sri Jayewardenapura. It will be worthwhile to probe why these police posts were closed in the past. A police post may have a few policemen and we have to see how such police post with few policemen could be a deterrent and whether they will be effective in controlling large student numbers in a given situation.

In the past, consistent agitation by the students towards withdrawal of police posts in the universities has led to the closure of such police posts in the universities. Therefore we should be mindful of not giving unnecessary issues to the students to use against the Government.

In the past, various governments and the universities have attempted to enforce normal law of the land in universities on a number of occasions but it had been the exception rather than the rule. Only when a very serious problem arose that the police were called and very often this happens after the event. Police assistance had not been obtained by universities to prevent incidents in universities but used only after the event rather than before.

The university authorities have failed to take preventive action through the involvement of police in fear of student agitation. The police also on their part fear to enter the university premises unless they have the sufficient numbers and have obtained proper clearance from the police top brass, even if they are summoned by the Vice Chancellor. This is mostly due to the presence of large number of students in the universities. On an average most of the universities have a student population of more than 5,000 except in a few new universities and the problem is further aggravated with the admission of a double batch of students.

Proposals

I have worked in universities and mid level and at very senior level of administration in a number of higher educational institutions for a period of more than quarter of a century and I wish to submit my proposals on the basis of this experience and the experience I gained from visiting a large number of universities in different parts of the world.

My proposal could be divided into two parts, namely internal measures and measures requiring outside support.

In terms of the present Universities Act it is specifically stated that the Vice Chancellor shall be responsible for the maintenance of student discipline. In view of this some of the university community is under the impression that it is the function of the Vice Chancellor and, others have no major responsibility towards student discipline, other than assisting the Vice Chancellor if they so desire.

The Vice Chancellors are compelled to maintain student discipline with the assistance of the Director Student Affairs and few of his assistants and a few of the academic staff members who are helpful to him and the administrative officers.

The Deans and Heads of Department should also be made responsible and accountable for the maintenance of student discipline within the respective faculty or the department as the case may be. At present they have certain limited disciplinary powers in terms of the By Law on student discipline. But this function of student discipline to Deans and Heads of Department should be given more muscle than at present by way of a suitable amendment to the Universities Act.

In the past before the enactment of the University of Sri Lanka Act No. 2 of 1972 the most senior professor in the academic department functioned as the Head of the Department. This system was changed with the University of Sri Lanka Act No. 2 of 1972 where there was provision for a teacher above the rank of a senior lecturer made eligible for appointment as a Head of a Department.

Further, the period of Heads appointment was fixed as three years. This resulted in a very junior staff members getting appointed as Heads of Department. These junior members of the academic staff once appointed as Heads of Department could not give leadership in the department like the senior professor in the past. Further holding a post of Head of Department qualifies one for certain points for promotion. In order get points the Headships were rotated among the staff.

This seriously affected the role of the Head of Department where there is no proper leadership in the academic departments. Very often we find academic staff in the departments quarrelling with the present day junior heads of departments on trivial matters mostly due to their not accepting the appointment of such junior heads of departments. This type of divisions in the department affects the smooth functioning of the departments which sometimes lead to students getting involved with various factions thus affecting student discipline.

I think it is timely to review this matter and go back to the practice of appointing the senior professor as the head of academic department.

The By Law of the universities should be properly amended in keeping with the present day acts of student indiscipline. For example the offences such as unlawful assembly, keeping university authorities under hostage, using duress to perform certain functions by university staff and etc. should be made offences which warrant serious punishment. Further if a student commits a criminal offence and is remanded there should be provision in the By Laws to suspend such a student until the finalisation of the case. A similar provision apply in the case of public servants.

The section on disciplinary procedure is weak. Very often the members of the academic staff are reluctant to conduct inquiries, and the university administration finds it difficult to conduct inquiries on students matters at the proper time. A proper disciplinary code like in the public service should be introduced to the By Laws on student discipline.

There should be panel of inquiring officers like in the public service to conduct inquiries. It will be useful to include retired principals of schools and retired public servants in such panels. The standard of disciplinary inquiries against students is very low. A very comprehensive and efficient disciplinary procedure is very important and the present By Laws on student discipline in universities should be amended to suit the present day needs.

The By Laws were enacted in the universities in the past with coming into operation of the present Universities Act No. 16 of 1978. These By Laws need revision urgently in order to maintain student discipline in the seats of higher learning.

Elections to the Faculty Student Unions:

The student unrest and clashes among students is more common during the period of student union elections and during the period of freshers admission to universities. In terms of the By Laws on student union elections the nomination and elections have to be held within one month of the new academic year.

It is no secret in universities that ragging is used as a mechanism to canvas for votes at these Faculty Student Union elections and the results in clashes among different student groups. The freshers who are new to the universities become stools in the hands of more powerful student groups.

Therefore I wish to recommend that the Student Union elections be held in the second semester rather than in the first semester. If these elections are held in the second semester rather than in the first semester the freshers also will be able to contribute better since by then they will know more about the university.

The only problem I could see in such a change is some of the office-bearers who are final year students may not be able to function for a full academic year but the student unions could elect another for the rest of the period from among the union office bearers.

The system will get adjusted as time goes on. The students who are interested in seeking election to a particular office will seek election in the third year or the second year if they wish to serve in the student unions.

Have two tiered system of Marshals and Private security:

There is very little the Marshals can do to control student unrest as I have explained earlier how this system collapsed in the 1970s. You may give them the best of training but so long as they do not enjoy authority and power the Marshals will be ineffective like the way the few Marshals or the internal security personnel in the present university system. It is like changing the old pillow for a headache.

Police intervention:

The student violence cannot be controlled without the intervention of the police. This has been the most effective method to control student violence. At present police intervention is sought after the event, where the damage has taken place. There is an urgent need to obtain police assistance when there is a threat to peace in the universities.

This can be done if the police could evolve a method that they can muster a force of at least 300 policemen and reach any university within 30 minutes when there is a threat to peace to maintain law and order. The police be requested to assign the subject to universities to a DIG who can maintain contact with the Vice Chancellors on a regular basis. The police should function in the same way they function when there are acts of violence in a factory or any other public or private organisation.

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager