In the fourth week since Daphne’s funeral, once again the family have had to take action to ensure that justice is done. It is rather surprising that in certain cases, which only involve common sense, the family had to recur to justice rather than quick action being taken by the authorities so that this would not be necessary.

Since Daphne’s Running Commentary came to an abrupt end, it is much more difficult for the common person to understand what exactly is going on behind the scenes in this country. I would have loved to read the piece she would have probably written just after Minister Evarist Bartolo’s visit to the University, to discuss the Consultation Paper concerning the new proposed law regarding the university.

The main accusation against this law is that it risks lessening the autonomy of the university. Which brings on the question: but why is university’s autonomy important? The free circulation of ideas, based on scholarship and research, is at the very raison d’être of a university. Since their founding in the Middle Ages, universities were considered as self-regulating entities that worked under the official permission and legal protection of an ecclesiastical or civil authority. The fact that the universities were autonomous meant that discussion and research were unhampered by concerns outside the universities, and regulated by people within the universities themselves. Thanks to this, universities were protected from political or social impositions, and knowledge could develop freely. This freedom allowed academic work to thrive, broadened the scope of learning, and allowed for the huge academic and scientific advances that have progressively shaped the world.  Learning and development were hampered by limitations to academic freedom through the imposition of particular ideas or ideologies, such as in Soviet times.

Today, the role of a university has not changed. It is the privileged place to generate freedom of thought (and not only of speech). It is meant to deliver the right scholarship to provide the formation of new ideas and knowledge that will contribute to the country’s progress and well-being.  The scope of a university is, ultimately, to enable the formation free, critical thinkers, capable of carrying out sustained study in the pursuit of new scientific, social and cultural developments, and who can challenge the way society functions and help steer it in new directions that may be of benefit to society itself.

So in what ways do the new government proposals threaten university autonomy? Currently, the University of Malta is regulated at different levels. At the bottom of the hierarchical structure, are the different departments. These departments are part of a faculty, an institute or a school, which is headed by a dean or a director. The regulation of the faculty is determined by the dean’s policy, that is also shaped by the different heads of department through consultation at Faculty board level, with elected student representation. In turn, the Faculties, institutes and schools are represented at Senate, which is the highest academic body, and which approves all that has to be done at an academic level: approval of syllabi, new subjects, new credits, examinations etc.  Senate is presided over by Rector, and is composed mainly of academic staff as well as student representatives and two representatives appointed by the Minister of Education. The Junior College Principal is invited to attend.  Above Senate is the Council, which decides on all university matters, and approves academic decisions taken by Senate. In Council, there is more or less equal representation between the whole of the university staff, academic and non- academic on one side and fourteen government representatives on the other.

The ‘Consultation Paper’ proposed by government introduces two new bodies: an Executive board and a Governing Board.  The Executive Board would consist of three people: the chief operations officer, Rector and one non-academic executive. Noticeably, the Rector does not chair the board and is the only one representing academics on this board. The Governing Board would be composed of three to five members, nominated directly by the Prime Minister (who already has thirteen representatives at Council level, plus one appointed by the Minister of Education). The consultation document states that members of this board should not have any direct interest in the university, governmental ministries or be members of parliament. Among their duties is that of approving the university’s academic plan, business plan and annual budget; as well as acting as an appeals board.  

The University union (UMASA) opposed the establishment of the two boards in the form outlined by government. Every academic who attended the meeting objected to the Governing Board, because it creates an even more top-down structure which may lead to direct interference by the Prime Minister, and loss of autonomy of the university. Academics agreed to an appeals board, and also to an executive board, chaired, however, by the Rector, if its role is clearly determined. The Minister seemed set in establishing – or foisting – the Governing Board on to the university and did not answer questions regarding the utility of such a board. He also suggested that rather than issue a White Paper on the proposed law, we should go directly to the drafting of the law itself.  This apparently magnanimous gesture is, to my mind at least, to be rejected. A white paper is ‘a tool of participatory democracy’: it presents more concretely what the government intends to put in a law and allows for deeper and more extended public debate. It can help a government rethink its position before actually drafting the law itself, which is then debated in the parliamentary committees.

The current structure gives academics full participation at all levels. The proposed law removes participation totally at the highest level and reduces it drastically at the level of the executive board. There is ground for alarm that what is at stake is the reduction of University’s autonomy. This would be an important step to loss of freedom in the country.