The university is making headlines, but for all the wrong reasons. Once more the post of vice chancellor was at the centre of controversy. How are vice chancellors appointed and is the system fair and transparent? Is xenophobia to blame behind Neil Garrod’s decision to decline the post? What kind of vacuum did former- VC Konrad Morgan leave behind and why is our university lagging behind when it comes to research?

¦ The university is making headlines again. Neil Garrod has declined the offer to be vice chancellor (VC). He said that it is due to the fact that the process was made public. Do you think that is the reason?

There are a number of reasons why he may have turned the post down, and I presume one of them would be financial. Because if you don’t pay good people good money, they will not come. This, however, is my personal interpretation I’m no longer in the system.

¦ You don’t think it has to do with all the noise made around the appointment?

Well with the internet, people now get news much faster and I’m sure he must have read press articles and been made aware of the reaction of the students and felt that he wasn’t wanted. From what I know, the students have made a big fuss over getting a local VC.

¦ It wasn’t just the students who did not want a foreigner as VC but some staff as well. Do you find it normal that every time institutions try to recruit a foreigner, there’s a crisis of xenophobia?

I wouldn’t call it a crisis of xenophobia. There has been a lot of concern and frustration when recruitment has been done as there’s a feeling that the university does not value its own people. This is how people have viewed this whole process. Now the question is how to really explore people’s potential. I am always for the best person in the best place.

¦ Some people feel that a foreigner at the helm of the university would reduce the amount of politics going on. You obviously don’t share that view, do you?

We are in 2012 and so far the university has functioned very well. So why all of a sudden do we find that this poses a problem? You know, if we are going to forever recruit people from abroad, we will end up with a problem of sustainability. You have to train your own people. You have to marshal your own resources.

¦ Until then, don’t we need foreign expertise?

Yes, but we’ve already had local people running the university. We’ve already had local VCs. I think what we need to do in the university is ensure its independence which we can only do through a strong council and governing body that can see to it that the place is driven according to the rules of good governance.

¦ Is the council strong enough in your opinion?

(Laughs) It doesn’t look like it has the full power or autonomy it is supposed to have. This is my impression, although I could be wrong. Over the years, there has been an erosion of the university’s autonomy…

¦ How?

In the 1980s, the VC had the power to hire and fire, but now he’s just one vote in the staff committee. The extent to which a VC can exercise his power has been dramatically reduced.

¦ Is the concentration of powers in one person a good thing?

This is the question that must be asked when you look at how you want to run the university and which countries you want to emulate and from whose experiences you want to learn. Over the years, the mandate of universities has changed and there are several models available. The National University of Singapore, for example, has been corporatised to deliver in line with the ambitions of the country. That is one model. There is also the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) model in India and the South African model, a country that has three of the top universities in Africa Cape Town is number one. How did they do it? The indicators are there: they are independent but also business-friendly. Other aspects are intellectual property, encouraging research and above all, ensuring that the funds are there because you cannot have a good institution unless you have good governance, good facilities and funding. These three ingredients have to be there to make a varsity progress. If you place our university in this international context, you will begin to understand why we are where we are. We need to reflect on where we want to position the university. Is it meant to produce graduates? Is it meant to serve the economic agenda of the country? Is it meant to be working in close collaboration with the private sector so that we can have really high fl ying research?

¦ Isn’t research the university’s Achilles’ heel?

I think that when academics come to the university, they carry on doing their research. For instance, when I came in as an academic, I wanted to progress. The whole idea is to publish or perish. I wanted to publish papers and do research because I wanted to become senior lecturer and eventually professor. But there is a missing link as to where we want to position ourselves in research. There is research, but it’s only relevant within the academic framework.

¦ What is the missing link?

I will provide an example with my own research I started as an academic and did my research in medicinal plants. But I had the opportunity, or rather I created the opportunity, to translate this research into a business. I have just come back from the Rio+20 pre-conference technical meeting. One of the themes that will be discussed by the heads of states is a greener economy. Now, in Mauritius, we have a unique biodiversity. So I have capitalised on this positioning to bring to the world new resources so that we can address this concept of green economy. I do not think that there are bad projects happening in Mauritius but it’s all a question of networking and linking up all these projects. To move the research from academia, we need to have the right framework of funding, intellectual property and patenting. It all requires money. So far, people that have been able to do research at the university have depended a lot on donors. And I’ll put it bluntly: we cannot rely on handouts to develop our own agenda. We need to have a commitment and it has to come with funding.

¦ Apart from endemic plants, there are many pressing social issues where the university could be present through research. There are so many debates. Where is the university in all of this?

Unfortunately, you are right: we have not seen any major debates on issues that have been of great concern to society but then again, what is the model that we have developed over the past years? Have we developed the right model for institutions? So far, the academics have only been concerned about having their work published because the agenda is simple: a promotion. At the end of the day, if you look at the academics – what do they earn? What are their prospects? This is the issue that is conditioning the academics into doing what they are doing! I myself have been very involved in research but it only goes that far. It does not go beyond Réduit. There is no leadership in terms of research! I’m sorry to say it but it’s true. That is why anyone who comes in conducts their research the way they want to. I have been hearing that there is Rs100 million for research but I still have not seen it.

¦ You can only expect to see it if you present a worthwhile project.

Well, show me an academic that has presented a project and has received it. I have left the university for the private sector to drive the vision 2020 agenda in order to make an impact at the level of economics.

If you look at the indicators from the Board of Investment, they would like more research and things happening in the medical and clinical area. I have positioned myself at this level to see my research being translated into development. This has been my own initiative. Now the question is if the ministry is saying that we can have this Rs 100 million – fair enough – then we need to have a plan as to how the research is being done, how it will be translated, what the pillars of development where they would like to see more input are so that we have more impact later on. I have yet to see all of this.

¦ Has konrad Morgan’s departure caused a lot of harm to the university?

Well he only spent two years in Mauritius. He wanted to broaden the structure and empower the faculty for them to have their own vision. I have heard references to the “Morgan Plan”. I think it is unfair to call it the “Morgan Plan” it should be termed the “University Plan” when it gets approved by the council. He also wanted to look at the statute. If you want the university to work towards the 21st century, you cannot work on statutes that are fifty years old. The university needs to have a vision to be able to position itself in the future.

¦ Do you think it’s a pity that the Neil Garrod did not take up the VC position or is it a blessing in disguise?

If he has shown a vision which appealed to the committee, then, in that sense, I would say that it’s a pity. But again, I am not in a good position to comment on this, because I was also an applicant. I presume that the panel which interviewed him was impressed with the vision he had for the university.

¦ Do you think that the exercise was fair?

(Laughs) It would not be ethical for me to comment on the exercise as I was one of the applicants. It would not sound credible.

¦ Are you hopeful for the university?

Fairly. As I said, the university has to dissociate individual needs and individual aspirations from institutional aspirations. I think that a country needs good and strong institutions to progress. All countries that have invested in good institutions with the three ingredients – governance, academics and money – have progressed. Individuals come and go, but institutions stay. Institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge, LSC and Harvard have stayed and they are going to stay because the people managing them have never compromised on quality. Quality at any cost. Individual interests can not prevail. We need to always focus on institutions. This is the way these institutions and their reputation will stay.

¦ Are you satisfied that that is the case at the UoM?

(Laughs.) I don’t know!

¦ You don’t know or you don’t want to say?

I don’t want to say. Time will tell. In the future, we will be in a position to judge whether what has happened has been in the best interest of the institution. If it has been in the best interest of the institution, we should see indicators show UoM rise internationally. We always position ourselves internationally because we always want to be an international player. If you want to be an international player, you have to run according to international norms. If we have respected this, if we have fought for the institution, we should see the indicators improve for Mauritius.

¦ Are we likely to see less drama at the UoM. The last drama was about the promotion exercise. Is that justified in your opinion?

I don’t know why there has been so much drama, to be honest. I don’t think you see things like that in any other country in the world. I have seen many institutions, but I have never seen such drama around nominations.

¦ Why is there drama here?

It’s an insular small island. I don’t know why, but everything here becomes dramatic.

¦ But has this always been the case? Every promotion exercise has been like this?

I must say that to be fair to the university, the promotion exercise has some degree of transparency. You have to have a portfolio and you have to come and defend it. OK, granted there is a marking system but I think it is quite fair. But again having said this is the whole process completely fair? That is the question that we have to ask.

¦ Do you have the answer?

The process is fair up to a point. But the drama is unjustified.

¦ Isn’t drama expected if people feel they have been passed over for promotion?

You know in the whole process at the university, there is no limit or no quota in terms of how many appointments are made, provided that you meet all the prescribed targets. This is how it’s done and so far it has been functioning. However, this system has existed for ten years, so it needs to be relooked into in terms of the exigencies of the international context. For example, there are many international publications which look at the ‘impact factor’. The impact factor reflects the quality of the research. If we are want to improve our ranking, all this needs to be taken on board. If you want your academics to be recognised internationally, you need to make sure that they are publishing in high-impact factor journals. But in order to be able to do this, you need to revisit ingredients needed for a good university in terms of laboratories and facilities. Also, you need to ask the right questions: Are the best people employed? How do you keep the best people? Are we in a position to retain these people? This brings us back to three ingredients: good facilities, good academics and funding. The ones that have made it are those that have managed the institutions and have ensured that there are good governors. Quality will matter all the time and if you aim for quality, there is no reason for any qualms whatsoever.

¦ Do you foresee more drama histrionics at the next appointment exercise?

I don’t think that there is any need for drama and histrionics. I don’t think there is any drama when people are appointed at the Mauritius Revenue Authority (MRA), for example. There are so many institutions in this country that have appointed expatriates. The UoM is not unique in that sense.

Touria PRAYAG
(l’express Weekly, Friday 22 June 2012)

Touria PRAYAG