A FEW weeks ago, this column carried an offering expressing pride and satisfaction at the developments at the University of Guyana and our certainty that the Institution was moving in the direction of becoming a pre-eminent Caribbean university and one whose students and degrees would be accepted and respected worldwide. It therefore came as a surprise when a large number of members and the Committee of the Guyana Consumers Association (GCA), several of whom had been students of UG, requested that we discuss what appeared to be a vocal move by the Unions in the University to influence the University Council for the non-renewal of the Vice-Chancellor’s contract.

The GCA’s membership pointed out that though the Unions were important and influential, they did not represent the Guyanese public or the parents or the students. The Parliamentary political parties, for instance, who represent the public and the nation and whose policies and programmes are to have a high-grade and world-class university in Guyana have expressed no desire to have the Vice-Chancellor leave the Institution.
In the discussions of the GCA, the former UG students remarked that several lecturers took almost a year to give them their examination results and many students’ transcripts could not be completed so as to allow them to be admitted to universities abroad to pursue higher degrees or even to go into suitable jobs. These former UG students felt that because Vice-Chancellor Griffith had instituted cut-off points by which results must be made available to the students, he brought upon himself the anger of academic staff. Another reason why they felt the staff had decided to get at him was that the percentage of salary increases he had offered was too low. Other members pointed out that though the Unions had vigorously put forward their case, there was no indication of any personal animosity between UG staff and the Vice-Chancellor; their main complaint was the way they thought money had been irresponsibly misspent.

At this point, we will review the positions and arguments for the continuance of Professor Griffith as UG Vice-Chancellor:
Firstly, the UG unions have been very emphatic that the UG under Vice-Chancellor Griffith has been spending too lavishly and with wrong priorities. They claim, for example, that he travels by business class only when using UG funds and that the staff could have received higher pay increases if money were more judiciously spent. They also feel, for instance, that the various public lectures, symposia and conferences were a waste of money. After these and other accusations, they felt it was imperative that there should be a forensic audit.

Four general conclusions emerged from the GCA’s discussion: (a) There were indeed some faults in the financial administration of the university (b) Many of these faults had been inherited (c) Such faults were not irremediable and could be corrected by serious discussion between the Unions and the UG Administration (d) It is unfortunate that the Unions’ accusations should have been made at this time since it could be interpreted as an attempt to influence the University Council when they consider the renewal of the Vice-Chancellor’s contract.

There are always two sides to every issue – for example, it is expected that persons of a certain status must travel by business class since their hosts on the other side would not be looking for them in the third class lounge. Or the public lectures etc have been bringing UG to the People and increasing its prestige and have been attracting a wide cross-section of the population including the Diplomatic community. Such lectures and programmes are perceived as part of the transformational process of the University.

In passing, it may be mentioned that the situation at UG is analogous to India 40 years ago. Forty years ago, India suffered great food shortages and Western countries advised and even demanded that the Indians spent their resources on Agriculture. India, led by Pandit Nehru, in the face massive Western pressure and even ridicule, spent a lot of resources on Industrial development and technology. The India of today which has food surpluses and is a great industrial and technological power resisted short term spending on immediate demands for long term gains. The Vice-Chancellor is using the same strategic thinking.

Second, all these accusations, many of them being valid, have to be balanced against the University’s achievements over the last three years. The achievements over the last three years have been many and extraordinary and many of them have ramifications that go way into the future. We will refer to one or two of them to illustrate how achievement outweighs spending: Research and Publications are the life-blood of any university and UG. for one reason or another, has been sadly lacking in this field. Professor Griffith has resuscitated the Research life of the University and has even brought the undergraduates on board, beginning an exchange programme whereby undergraduates are allowed to present the result of their researches at foreign universities. Twinning with Research, he has established a Guyana University publishing company in collaboration with a well-known international publisher and printer. The other achievement we refer to is his establishing and deepening contacts with the Guyanese Diaspora which could result in an enormous benefit to the academic quality of the university and improvements in its infrastructure. The student population are appreciative of these achievements and are supportive of Professor Griffith and this alone should be the determinant to let Professor Griffith continue to serve and bring his creative programmes to fruition. After all, the student population is the raison d’etre of the university and for whom the university exists in the first place.
Third, if Professor Griffith were to leave the University at this time, the many positive and creative programmes which he has started or for which he has laid the foundations would fade away and the University would have missed the opportunity of becoming a modern institution.

Fourth, it takes nine months to a year to recruit a Vice-Chancellor and to find one who would be proactive and creative and would not be afraid to rock the boat in moving the University forward. The experience over the last twenty-five years verifies this. None wished to rock the boat and all sailed through placid waters to their retirement but sadly leaving a UG where little of substance was achieved.

The consumer community strongly feels it is imperative to allow Professor Griffith to bring to fruition the works he has started and to bring the University into to path of moving to world-class status.