The above quoted headline is attributed to Claus Adolf Moser, a British statistician, and nothing could be closer to the truth in the dispute between the University of Malta Academic Staff Association and the government of Malta.

Both sides have announced that they have come to reach a draft agreement on university lecturing staff salaries, conditions and investment within the University, and not before time.

The dispute had been going on since last June and culminated in four directives issued to staff that could have put university exams (due to start this week) in jeopardy. It was only a noisy and well thought out protest by the University Students’ Council that seemed to force the two parties to budge from their adamant stances. Finance Minister Tonio Fenech put on the table what was termed to be a “take it or leave it offer”, which was categorically turned down by the union. The union then proceeded to dig its heels in further and issue directives which were massively unfair on university students.

The students said their two main bones of contention were that they had the right to study in peace for their exams and sit for them without undue stress and concern. They were completely right; no one would want to slave away on course work or trawling through books only to find out that their exams have been postponed for weeks or months. They were also right to argue against blanket pass marks in the event of exams not being held. This, they said, discriminated against those who had worked diligently over the year and would also tarnish their final degree.

Another issue raised by the students was the fact that postponement of exams would lead to further backlog come the spring months and would culminate in end of year tests being moved into summer. This, they said, was primarily unfair against foreign students, as well as those who had work placements or courses abroad during the holidays.

Again, they are completely right. But perhaps the most solid argument that the students had, which the KSU President branded as “shameful and hard-headed” was the UMASA’s decision to boycott the senate and committees, which they said snookered students completely as without these fora, no decisions could be taken to rectify or at least mollify the parties concerned.

Of course, it takes two to tango. The government should not have been so obstinate about the union’s demands at such a sensitive time. The government will say that it wants to get on with business, but this is where the PN’s solidarity issue comes into the picture. No solidarity at all was shown with students. The government treated this as a simple industrial dispute and did not look at the needs and concerns of the students. And this is where Moser’s quote becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yes, it costs money to teach students and that is in the form of university lecturer pay packages, stipends and of course the equipment at the university itself, along with other investment.

But if this issue was not resolved and this whole academic year was thrown into flux, would there not have been financial repercussions? Would it not have resulted in perhaps lower pass figures and less people actively taking up employment? The truth is that these are probably all true. The issues raised by the UMASA are valid. The government’s tightening the purse strings in this economic climate is also perhaps justified from a policy point of view. But what was not justified was the way in which students were treated, ignored from start to finish by all parties in an issue which could ultimately shape their future.