University woes - rights for the rural masses

Ramona T. Fernando

Considering the problem most of these youth have to face - having come from underprivileged rural backgrounds with poor employment prospects - the term inferiority complex used on these youth does not justify the real and underlying issues of the nation.

It perpetuates a system out of equilibrium which has pandered to the privileged of society, and has not addressed the true issues of the masses.

It is sad to hear the labelling of society by psychiatrists and psychologists towards the poor and downtrodden.

In the interests of the nation, such labelling should be two ways, where the rich and privileged could also be analysed, and be given the labels such as those of superiority-complex, megalomaniac, despotism, arrogance and conceit, and delusional thoughts in the face of abject poverty.

While due credit should be given to the founders of the university (Sir Ivor Jennings being one of them), which such knowledge of the mindset of our country's youth, and the majority of the country on the whole, can legitimate reasons be given by university administration for the disregarding of the student unions?

Are the naming conventions to be purely dependant upon the whims of the administrators of the universities? Knowing the students' revulsion towards foreign names and foreign values, why were the students not given more information about Sir Ivor Jennings beforehand, and why is there not a drive to introduce students to the understanding of foreign views, cultures and lifestyles, including the colonial system with its merits and demerits?

Should not there be certain approved and mandatory codes written and enforceable so as to protect the thoughts and ideals of each student in the university, or is each student impelled to follow rigid and outdate codes of ethics and operations, incomprehensible and unacceptable to their endurance?

The problems in our universities did not initially edge in from LTTE terrorist activities. Rather it was from the products of social imbalances ever since higher learning was rightly doled out to the masses.

Unfortunately university admin is still governed by the learned of the "old-school" who have failed considerably, consistently, and miserably in understanding the needs and wants of the rural masses.

From the publications of countless stories spanning several decades since our independence, one wonders when the voice of the common man will be heard.

The right of free speech and action is a good indicator of the nation's worries and woes; the dissident student voice is the indicator of the true state of affairs of any country. It is in the nation's welfare that such a voice is heard.

Student voice is of paramount importance in understanding and dealing with societal problems. Each bit of student dissention should be viewed as a learning tool for the betterment of the country.

Every student complexity emerges from factual problems in society - from the poverties of the rural upbringing, to the final disappointment in lack of job opportunities due to lack of entrepreneurship effected by lack of training in such skills.

From the countless stories of excessive ragging to murderous student clashes, mandatory enforceable laws should be set to govern and protect both students and lecturers.

For example, in considering a certain item of clothing which could provoke victimisation, a dress code could be then set up by student and administering bodies so as to protect the rights of students without any unjustifiable infringements on rights.

If the wearing of foreign made items could cause victimisation for some, locally made dress items could be encouraged. Indeed it will offset a trend in fashion to buy such that is made in Sri Lanka. In excessive ragging and given the intensity of its violations, a certain amount of policing is necessary so as to protect the rights of the student victims.

Freedom of speech and expression should be governed within certain parameters in the interests of safety and security of all, and depending on the needs and mindset of any nation.

In comparing Sri Lankan Universities to those of other democratic nations like the USA, the vices of the American students relate to gun-violence, drug abuse, sex-abuse and perversion, Internet pornography, and certain subtle though rampant forms of social and racist degradations towards minorities and those of lower income backgrounds. In the name of freedom, all vices are allowed, and tolerated with a watchful eye in the views and hopes of upholding a higher form of democracy.

These vices sometimes spill out into post-campus society, and vice-versa, but not without the eventual and ultimate balancing out of good and bad; right and wrong; society's degradations and society's higher ethics and standards.

In comparison to the American youth, the vices of the Sri Lankan youth possess a certain kind of naivete which American society lack, and which America would find preferable to deal with.

A better knowledge of the English language is not necessarily conductive towards better intelligence and thinking skills.

Diversity and lack of coordination between the urban and rural settings create the unnecessary barriers our nation needs to function as a harmonious whole.

From grade school levels, students in the private schools, especially the Colombo private schools, are far distanced from their peers in the governmental and rural settings.

These students find it demeaning to interact with those of the lower backgrounds and tend to be far removed from the true situation of the country. The social stigma placed on the rural youth is an unnecessary handicap, degrading for a civilised nation such as Sri Lanka.

Education from grade school level should be geared towards coordination between rich and poor, rural and urban, English-speaking and non-English speaking; with the idea towards eradication of cast, class or creed; and better understandings and appreciations of each facet of society; a symbiotic existence between all levels, both national and international, both historical, contemporary and possibly futuristic; all for the good and betterment of our nation.

Political activism should be permissible

WILSON NELUMDENIYA

We have found that certain groups of Government servants, or groups of people sometimes take hostile actions against the Government once the Government issue some unfair action against the public or against the Government servants. But almost all the Governments always say that such an action is not fair. But, when we find out carefully, we find that there is a reasonable background for such an action.

This is common even in universities. It is because that it is not an easy task to gather anybody if there is no background for such an action. According to this reason even the hostile actions of the universities come under this scheme.

But the Government always tries to affair the political lables in hostile actions of universities, because any action could put into political list even if it is a very reasonable one. For instance, if they fight saying hostel facilities are not fair, or claim for necessary lectures, such things are put into the political list, and they are expected to keep their mouths shut for any reasonable action.

On the other hand the political science is a subject for university students. They have to study this subject for their lectures. Once they study under a qualified lecturer about the correct method of governing country, the animal type behaviour of certain Members in Parliament could go to their minds very easily, about their guileful Members of Parliament.

Some uneducated and unpractical member may enforce an unreasonable action and the university students may oppose it. So if the political activism is not allowed then and there the force of the bomb will increase and it will create more effect and very dangerous actions could be created and such actions may be very harmful, just like trying to keep a volleyball forcibly under water.

The problem is that the governing party forgets about the universities once they are in power. They ignore the graduates. They never think that it is the next generation who has to come forward to take over the responsibility from where the Parliamentarians are occupied at present. Therefore, they must be allowed to move their minds freely, to discuss about the country and also their own matters.

When a child is qualified for his or her GCE Advanced Level always his or her intention is to get into the university for further education, and to get through a degree. They do not have any contentious ideas against any body once they are admitted to a university.

But when they have to face impediments in the midst of their peaceful studies automatically they have to come forward and act against such actions because it is the only sword that they have if the adminstration does not take any progressive action to avoid such impediments.

A university student does not like to act against any administration because they know well that even if they lose one lecture the loss is immense. But, in university, we know that there is a practical parliament.

It is because the education in university should not only be in theory, but it should be practical. So we have to allow political activism in the universities. Also we know not only in universities but some schools too had a practice of taking their students once in a way to Parliament specially for debates to have a practical knowledge of how a Parliament functions.

But at present, in a Parliament what and what can a student study I wonder. I will narrate how a pupil has written in a school when the teacher asked the class to write an essay about 'How is our class when the teacher is absent' one student described it as 'when the teacher is absent our class is like the Parliament'.

This shows that the decorum of Parliament has gone from bad to worse.

As such the university students are thousand times better than some of our Members of Parliament. The university students fight only for their rights and not without a reason.

The administration or the Ministers fix a political label when they are not in a position to answer their grievances.

Political activism in universities: Is it permissible?

A few days ago, our university system marked five years of one of the most horrific and deplorable incidents that ever took place in its history. November 7, 2002 was the day that saw the brutal murder of young O.V. Samantha by a student group from his own university within the university premises itself.

The incident which shook the conscience of all Sri Lankans alike and sent shockwaves among the university community was probably the clearest manifestation of the role of political activism and rivalry in our present higher education system.

The violent clashes between student groups or 'unions' aligned with rival political parties which preceded Samantha's killing, the gruesome act that resulted in his untimely death, not to forget the manner in which his death was used to gain political mileage by certain segments, are ample proof of the extent to which the 'festering cancer' of political activism has eaten into our present university system.

Of further significance is the fact that the rift which claimed Samantha's life originated in a disagreement between the two student groups over 'ragging', a degrading and often inhumane practice promoted by certain student 'unions' directly or indirectly linked with leading political parties in the country.

In the light of these events, it would hardly be surprising if one questions as to whether political activism should be permitted in our universities any longer, given the damage it has already caused.

Yet, as discussed earlier, many would agree that a vibrant student community, especially in a country like Sri Lanka where only the crSme de la crSme of the students qualify for university education, is vital for the proper functioning of a democracy.

Permitting students to engage in political dialogues and understand different political ideologies would, if not misused, promote values like free thought, free expression and the right of dissent.

Send in your views on the above issues to Daily News Debate. Your contributions numbering 750-1,000 words should be sent to Daily News Debate, 35, D.R. Wijewardene Mawatha, Colombo 10 and by email to [email protected]