Internal governance of the universities in Sri Lanka

Text of speech delivered by Higher Education Minister Prof. Wiswa Warnapala at Conference of Vice Chancellors in Wadduwa on August 28.

When the Medieval University came into existence, its over-lord was the Bishop of the diocese in which it was located as the University of the period was integrally linked to the Church.

Minister Prof. Wiswa Warnapala

Both Oxford and Cambridge had similar beginnings and it was on the basis of this tradition that Cardinal Newman expounded most of his ideas which later came to be incorporated in his celebrated work - ‘The Idea of a University’ published in 1858. In the middle ages, it was to the papal authority that the University scholars looked for patronage and privileges.

Intelligent men

The University was, as its very name implies, was a community of scholars who, as intelligent men, were not prepared to be subservient to authority. The medieval society, on the other hand, was authoritarian by nature. The University scholars, from the very start, were aware of the need to protect their rights and regulate their own affairs.

The University scholars, from this period onwards, wanted to have their say in the conduct of their own business. It was on the basis of this tradition that the administrative systems of the Universities evolved, and even during the midieval times, the Chancellor took precedence over others, and he, in his own personal capacity, was the head of the University.

A bridge

Originally he had been a religious official, but soon he became chief official of the University; he, in fact, was the bridge between the University and the Church and he enjoyed judicial power over his subordinates.

It came to be realized that a busy Bishop, because of his varied interests in the church, could only exercise cursory supervision, and as a result Chancellor’s duties were gradually taken over by a deputy, whom he appointed and later came to be known as the Vice Chancellor.

The Universities of the period, like other medieval guilds and similar institutions, were hierarchical in organization, and the most effective executive meeting of the University was the Convocation, consisting of both the teaching and administrative personnel of the University.

It was a kind of a Congregation, and it was from this concept that the Court of the University, which we practised in Sri Lanka when the University system was unitary in character, came into existence. It was the final court of appeal and the supreme governing body of the University, and it had the power to make permanent statutes on both academic and administrative matters.

A different meaning

The different faculties had an opportunity to consider matters individually before they were sent to the Convocation, which today has a different meaning attached to it.

This was the nature of the institutions of the University in the 16th Century, and until 1854, there were no changes in this form of organization; it remained cumbersome and outmoded. The reformers of the mid-19th Century were so eager to change the oligarchical character of the institution.

Since the system of administration was wholly midieval in character and organization, the Frank Report, which examined Oxford, made a number of significant recommendations for modifying the Universities’ governmental structure in the interest of greater administrative efficiency. The Frank Commission, in fact, said that “we have no doubt Oxford’s machinery of government needs radical revision”.

This report recommended that the Vice Chancellor no longer be chosen only from among the heads of the colleges but selected from among the members of the Congregation which, in effect, was similar to the University Court of our system in the initial period of University education in Sri Lanka.

Recommendations

The recommendations of this Report, in large measure, fell in line with modern trends. It laid the foundation for the creation of an academic and administrative oligarchy in the Universities.

The changes proposed aimed at administrative efficiency, and it was to be achieved by blending the independent traditions with the needs of the modern University. It needs to be stressed that a University cannot be run as a business organization.

On the basis of this historical introduction, I would like to examine certain aspects of University governance in Sri Lanka. The University of Ceylon Ordinance, No. 20 of 1942 was more or less modelled on the Oxbridge model and all institutions, both academic and administrative, came to be built on the experience of these two Universities.

Sir Ivor Jennings, though gave a different interpretation to the objectives of the Colonial University, wanted to establish a University with the institutions of the British model; it was during this period that the University administrators themselves wanted certain reforms within their system based on ancient traditions.

In most modern Universities, the government is vested in the University Court, a larger body, a majority of whom are not members of the teaching staff of the University but eminent persons representing different interests and groups.

What was needed was a good relationship with the representatives of the State; in 1948 it was stated that “the truth of the matter is that Universities have not yet learnt how to handle their new patron-the tax payer, the man in the street, speaking through his representative in Parliament”.

Autonomy

Ivor Jennings mentioned one technique for enlisting the understanding of the new patron, he said that “there was a large measure of autonomy in his University because the Government of Ceylon is given adequate representation in the Court of the University. The presence of elected members of Parliament in the Court enables those bodies to have adequate information about University activities.

To be continued