A dispute between an academic and a respected university raises questions about management styles
Khadija Magardie
The bitter wrangle between the University of Natal and its former head of social anthropology, Professor Caroline White, may set a precedent that will erode democracy in the country’s tertiary institutions.
An internationally renowned academic and writer, White was suspended from her position at the university in November last year amid allegations of racism against students – a charge which was later dropped, but then amended to a complaint against “your general attitude towards the authority of the university and your superiors”.
White was accused by one-third of the students in her course of harsh marking, and of making “disparaging remarks” on the papers of black students. The students’ representative complained directly to the dean of community and development disciplines, and not to the lecturer herself or the course convener first, a break with normal procedure, whereupon dean Ronnie Miller assured the students that he would take up the matter personally with White. White wrote a letter to Miller, accusing him of “flouting the normal procedures for dealing with student complaints”.
Eight months later, the university informed her that it was bringing charges of misconduct against her.
Contrary to normal procedure, which stipulates that suspensions of members of staff, except in cases of serious offences, can only be carried out following a preliminary investigation, White was suspended. She was barred from university premises, including those open to the general public – because, the university said, “people feel intimidated by her”.
This week, White’s legal counsel was offered a financial settlement in exchange for her resignation, together with an offer for a joint statement that it is believed will have had the effect of acknowledging her guilt in terms of the charges, and that her actions had brought the university into disrepute.
White has refused the offer, and it is believed she is demanding a full withdrawal of the charges, in order to clear her reputation.
This is just the tip of the iceberg in what insiders say will be an increase in confrontations between academics and management at universities, as universities start functioning more like multinational corporations than institutions of learning.
According to Steven Friedman, director of the Centre for Policy Studies, where White served as a senior researcher before her recruitment by the University of Natal, it is “a situation in which the concentration of power in the hands of vice-chancellors and deans is weakening democracy in universities”.
Friedman wrote a letter in support of White to the university council. Aside from the issue that the academic environment should promote free speech, Friedman says the affair between White and the university is “threatening for universities in general”.
The trend towards an executive style of university management is proving increasingly worrying for academics, who have equated it with an attack on their academic freedom to manage their departments and curricula free from what they would consider inappropriate interference. Friedman says the creation of executive posts, particularly for deans, is becoming problematic as management starts wielding a greater influence over academic affairs.
Until recently, South African universities have been structured along lines that gave significant autonomy to academics in terms of the running of their respective departments. Each discipline was taught within a department, which had its own budget. Each department fell within a faculty, headed by a dean. Deans did not normally interfere with the curricula of the departments, or in how they were taught.
In addition, each head of department, together with all other full professors of the university, comprised the senate, generally regarded as the highest decision-making body on academic matters, below the university council. The senate also deals with academic decisions such as qualifications and the awarding of degrees.
The council, on the other hand, dealt primarily with the administrative decisions for the university. The highest-ranking university officer, the vice-chancellor, is employed by the council, and advises it on matters relating to academic and administrative policy.
Many of the country’s universities have been forced to restructure because of financial constraints. At the University of Natal, like many other universities around the country, the smaller departments, such as social anthropology, either collapsed or were forced to merge with other departments. These sub-faculties, known as “schools”, are headed by heads of school under the control of the new executive deans of faculties. The new structure gives greater power to deans, who now not only have greater influence in individual departments, but are now also in charge of distributing departmental budgets.
The senate at the University of Natal has also been restructured. Previously, all full professors had a right to sit on the senate, but now every member must be either ex officio (all deans and heads of schools), or elected. Academics are thus deprived of what one academic has described as “their ancient right to govern the university’s academic affairs”.
In addition, some vice-chancellors have now assumed greater latitude to intervene in the academic running of universities. Normally, vice-chancellors have to get senate and council approval before suspending an employee, but in White’s case, University of Natal vice-chancellor Professor Brenda Gourley took the decision to suspend White first, and then presented the decision to senex (the senate executive) and council for ratification.
A prominent University of Cape Town academic has cautioned that such shifts and changes in universities could have “important, unintended consequences”, such as confrontations between management and academics, as well as the unionisation of academic staff.
Furthermore, it could lead to a situation where “management and academic unions confront each other around the bargaining table rather than in senate or at the faculty board”.
In a widely read, influential position paper on transformation and academic freedom, he said it was important to note that the shift in management style in universities was not only for reasons of managerial efficiency and financial viability, but also to ensure “the much needed transformation of a post- apartheid university”.
The academic, who did not wish to be named because the paper has not been officially published, predicted that the current state of affairs could erode the notion of “collegiality” – where faculty governance takes place in an environment wherein faculty members participate as equals.
Analysts say the restructuring in universities could have negative implications for the conducting of faculty business in general, if academics perceive their autonomy within their respective departments as under threat.
And as long as the line between management and academia is blurred, say some, the notion of free public speech by academics will, together with their academic freedom within their institutions, be effectively curtailed.
The university failed to respond to requests for comment at the time of going to press.