Stephen VasciannieIN A recent editorial on the Budget, The Gleaner took the opportunity once more to criticise the University of the West Indies (UWI). This time around, however, the editorial was rather in the nature of a 'last lick'. The greatest newspaper in the outer Empire indicated that UWI had not had a cut in its allocations under the Budget, that this was unjustifiable, and that this situation may be related to the fact that so many Cabinet members are part of the UWI community.
The 'last lick' component arises because the Gleaner editorial provided no analysis as to the alleged overfunding of the UWI. The line of argument presented which is now quite familiar is that money should be taken from the UWI and redirected to Early Childhood Education. The notion that more funds should be allocated in the Budget to pre-primary, primary and secondary is beyond cavil; the question, though, is why the increase for pre-tertiary education must necessarily be drawn from the budgetary allocation that would otherwise be made to the UWI?
The UWI is an easy target for critics: for many years it was the only university of its type in the Caribbean region, and so, some analysts are drawn to the view that the developmental problems of the region can be placed at the feet of UWI academics. Secondly, owing to limitations on resources, UWI has had to adopt a selective policy as to admissions over the years; thus, there are many Caribbean nationals who perceive the institution as elitist, and may well be inclined to hold this elitist place responsible for the problems around us.
PUBLICITY
Thirdly, but more controversially, UWI, Mona, is affected by national perceptions based both on a time-lag and on media publicity. The time-lag arises from the fact that, especially in the 1970s, UWI, more than anywhere else, was associated with the advocacy of scientific socialism for Jamaica. This was not necessarily a bad thing, for certainly, university lecturers are expected to be in the vanguard for change (as the Governor-General, Sir Howard Cooke recently reminded us).
The result, however, is that some people still believe that the UWI is dedicated to political advocacy of a certain colour, and not to the objective analysis of our socio-economic problems. The time-lag, in the minds of some Jamaicans, keeps us in the 1970s. This is probably a misconception, as will be evident from a careful reading of current work by those who wanted us to "forward to full socialism" in the '70s.
Similarly, as to media publicity, if you pay attention only to the national media, you will miss much of the traffic at UWI. For understandable reasons, the media tend to be more attracted to pronouncements from Mona concerning current topics in politics and economics than to a more careful review of developments in, say, chemistry, physics or biology.
Occasionally, we will hear about something like Canasol, and from time to time scientific work that has immediately applicable results (such as work concerning radioactive traces in some communities) is publicised; but, on the average, the Social Sciences will have the distinct advantage of media presence. Again, the result is that the reasonably informed layperson is apt to have an imperfect view of activities at Mona.
With these considerations in mind, it may be a good idea for The Gleaner to pursue more fully exactly what is happening at Mona. Readers will doubtlessly be interested in the work being undertaken in the individual faculties, Medicine, the Pure and Applied Sciences, Humanities and Education, the Social Sciences, and Law.
Readers will, I believe, also be interested in the teaching role of the University. Very often, when UWI is in the news, the broad charge is that the contribution is inadequate; but, in terms of assessing the factors that determine UWI's contribution, not enough store is usually attached to teaching. It is assumed that teaching is in place, but it sometimes appears to be assumed further that teaching quality is unrelated to levels of payment, opportunities for (costly) primary and applied research, and access to scholarly publications.
Finally, it must be remembered that a reduction in funds available to the UWI will, in all likelihood, mean a reduction in the public contribution of the university to scholarship in the form of publications and public discourse. There will almost always be a debate about the proper balance between publications in scholarly journals (where you may be read by 10 specialists) and public discourse (where you are heard by many, but you tend to be more superficial).
That said, however, neither activity is cheap. If the UWI is to remain the major force in the marketplace of ideas in the Caribbean, it would be myopic to reduce funding at the tertiary level in order to advance the cause of early childhood education. To fund early childhood education in this way is to proceed on the false premise and a premise unsupported by evidence that the UWI is overfunded.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law and Head, Department of Government at UWI. He is also a consultant in the Attorney-General's chambers.
