The Bill before the Scottish Parliament on the governance of Scottish Universities has implications not only for Scotland but anybody interested in the relationship of governments to the universities in their territories.
Here are some weblinks to this debate:
http://www.scottishuniversitygovernance.ac.uk
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0046/00462633.pdf
http://www.universities-scotland.ac.uk/uploads/HE%20consultation%20-%20US%20response.pdf
CDBU has received several communications from members on the topic in private, among them the following remarks:
“One of the key proposals [of the Scottish government], and the one that has provoked the most opposition from the Scottish university ‘establishment’, is that Chairs of Courts, i.e. Councils / Governing Bodies in English parlance, should be elected. I agree that, in principle, Governments shouldn’t prescribe how universities govern themselves – although they always have. But my understanding is that the students and the staff trade unions support this proposal. VCs, for obvious reasons, hate the idea because they like to have a big say in hand-picking Chairs. So, as with almost everything, it is more complicated.”
Another writes:
“Are the Principals of Scottish universities confronting a dilemma at least partly of their own making? Like their English counterparts, they have emancipated themselves from their academic colleagues by abolishing, for most practical purposes, the older notion that universities are self-governing communities of scholars. They have replaced this ancient conception with systems for populating senior governing bodies which are, by comparison, rather arbitrary and self-serving, that is, which lack any similarly profound grounding in a shared conception of what universities should be while serving to render universities more tractable to ‘managers’ like themselves. That being the case, should they be surprised when government steps in and insists on imposing its own conception of order?
Nor should they be surprised if their academic colleagues do not rush to join their protest against this form of government interference. ‘Senior managers’ can no long appeal to ‘the academic community’ for support because they have destroyed that community, at least as a self-governing entity. Moreover, having deprived ordinary academics of any significant role in managing affairs within their individual universities, they can hardly expect them to intervene effectively on the national stage. And even if they do intervene, why should academics fight to preserve a kind of ‘university autonomy’ which no longer means either academic freedom (to teach and research as one deems best) or academic self-governance (which leaves control of universities ultimately in the hands of fellow academics)? If academics no longer govern ourselves, it is not clear why they should prefer to be ruled by self-proclaimed ’managers’, accountable only to their hand-picked boards, rather than politicians, accountable to the electorate.”
For an alternative point of view, The Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland has kindly given us permission to circulate their submission, which you can read here.
We have also received the response of the Royal Society of Edinburgh on the subject, which you can also read here.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Carnegie Trust state that Scottish universities are already well governed. If these governing bodies are formed of members freely elected for fixed terms from amongst academic staff, then I should agree that there is no need for legislation. However, at least one UK university has such elected governance on paper – in theory only. Reality is quite different. The “elections” are not open. One may stand for Council, but there is no ballot; one is just told who has been selected. I’d be in favour of legal action where universities act in contravention of their own statutes and ordinances.
Where governing bodies have a large minority of ex-officio members, these tend to run the show. The posts from which they derive membership are unelected appointments, with the single exception, I think, being president of the student union. Items are rarely, if ever, put to a vote.
It is also the case that active academics focus on the primary activities of research and teaching. They tend to have little time or appetite for university politics, which they regard, rightly, as a distraction. Members of the burgeoning and self-selecting “senior management” often seem, in contrast, to engage in little else. I can think of only a few exceptional individuals who combine both roles. It is as if many universities have been infiltrated by a ruling class of people who have lost sight, if they ever had it, of what a university is for.
I suppose these sorts of influences are at work throughout the UK, possibly excepting Oxford and Cambridge, whose constituent Colleges are themselves self-governing.
If Scottish government feels there is a need to direct universities firmly then there may be good cause. Academic freedom has to be protected. A major threat to academic freedom in many universities is now unelected and unaccountable management – academic freedom has been displaced by managerial freedom. It might well require legislation to reverse this trend.