The Mail & Guardian‘s latest ”exposé” of ostensibly malevolent higher education management (”Education under the axe”, July 13) — this time aimed at Unisa’s academic restructuring — cannot go unchallenged.
Unisa wishes to set the record straight and foster a more nuanced and insightful debate on the restructuring of higher education. Our response is also prompted by exasperation with selective reporting that appears to be guided by automatic assumptions of one-sided (in this case managerial) meanness.
The hyperbolic headline attached to the piece should immediately have alerted readers to a less-than-subtle account of the issues. For the record, our spokesperson was approached with 10 wide-ranging questions. She was not given the opportunity to respond specifically to the academics’ anonymous statements. In reporting her responses in a desiccated manner, an impression of incoherence is created. More importantly, the opportunity is missed for a properly informed representation of views and exposure of issues.
Five key points can be noted.
First, given that the merged institution inherited a considerable number of modules with small enrolments, rationalisation was necessary and inevitable. In numerous cases five or fewer students are registered in modules. This is simply not viable. Perpetuating such blatant inefficiencies is managerially irresponsible. The point is not whether efficiencies are pursued, but how this is done.
This leads to the second point. Unisa was not guided solely by market and efficiency criteria. A systematic, transparent and participative process was followed in which the strategic value of modules was identified, measured and weighted. Driven by a senate subcommittee, and approved by senate, the criteria for strategic value included releÂÂvance, quality, uniqueness, contribution to national and continental development, Africanisation and internationalisation.
Contrary to the impression created, this process was not the manifestation of cold-hearted marketisation or heavy-handed managerialism. Affected departments had ample time and opportunity to engage and argue for strategic value.
Third, the intention is not to target the humanities, as implied in the article. Higgins poses the issue in unhelpful dichotomous terms, accusing national higher education policy of a simple-minded ”emphasis on science and technology at the expense of humanities”.
Given the historic imbalance in which enrolment was skewed towards the humanities and social sciences, debates have taken place since the early 1990s on the optimal size and shape of the system. These debates have recognised the need to increase science and technology, economic and management science enrolments, while acknowledging the important contribution of the humanities in the current context. Far from having the ”axe” out, Unisa is committed to the humanities — but, for historical reasons, the humanities have accumulated proportionally more non-viable modules.
Fourth, any rationalisation will be rigorously guided by the spirit and the letter of fairness as enshrined in our labour legislation.
Finally, the newly merged Unisa faces many challenges and limitations, described candidly in our 2015 Strategic Plan. The protracted merger process has sapped organisational energy for years. The Unisa leadership has publicly acknowledged staff uncertainty and the strain placed on administrative and operational systems by unanticipated rapid increases in enrolments. Academic and administrative performance and service delivery are, however, in some instances well below par. Some old practices and attitudes refuse to submit to new realities. Union responses have at times been obstructive.
Controversy and contestation are endemic to organisational life. This is especially so amid the rapid, turbulent changes experienced by the merged Unisa. None of these nuances are captured in the sensationalist tone and disjointed substance and construction of the article. We expect better from the M&G.
Narend Baijnath is Unisa’s vice-principal of strategy, planning and partnerships