SOUTH AFRICA: Report warns of freedom inroads

An exhaustive probe into institutional autonomy and academic freedom by a task team of South Africa's advisory Council on Higher Education has found that government's steering of universities has "grown more directive, less consultative, and occasionally prone to hierarchical decree". It proposes a range of actions including greater commitment on the part of the government to negotiating with universities on planning and funding.

The team found that steering through planning commonly highlighted a contested autonomy-accountability balance and that universities widely criticised government for planning that was "overly centralised, bureaucratic, opaque, generic and guilty of translating the public good into selective performance targets".

"The Council on Higher Education welcomes comment on the recommendations, which will form the basis of advice to be submitted to the Minister of Education," said its CEO Dr Cheryl de la Rey, in a foreword to the task team's August report Academic Freedom, Institutional Autonomy and Public Accountability in South African Higher Education.

Higher Education South Africa (HESA), the vice-chancellors' association, has called for comment from the country's 23 public universities, said spokesman Patrick Fish. University responses will be consolidated and used to engage with the Council and education minister.

"HESA is acutely aware that the question of institutional autonomy and academic freedom is fundamental to the purpose of the university. The contrasting ministerial styles and resultant policy drives that have been in place since the birth of democracy, have implications for institutional autonomy and this document offers us a chance to reflect on what modalities have been in place," said Fish. "This reflection has gained an added urgency in light of the inevitable sea-change that will occur after elections next year."

An independent Task Team on Higher Education, Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom was created by the council in mid-2005, to probe the nature of higher education regulation since 1994 and to promote debate on unresolved issues of academic freedom, institutional autonomy and accountability - "especially in the context of transformation". It was chaired by Dr Khotso Mokhele, president of the National Research Foundation.

The team found that while "flagrant instances of government interference are hard to pinpoint", state steering had grown more directive and less consultative especially between 2001 and 2004, and stakeholders "perceived government to act undemocratically at times". It stressed the needs for a renewed commitment to genuinely cooperative, multi-lateral policy-making and implementation, and proposed modifications to state steering to:

* Improve system development, cooperation and critique.
* Tackle "negative forces at play in the regulatory environment" such as limited capacity, weak coordination, system-change overload, market ideology and managerialism.
* Deal with ongoing contested issues.
* Consolidate principles of cooperation, academic freedom, substantive autonomy and democratic accountability.

During its two-year investigation, the team commissioned research and expert opinion, received submissions from a range of organisations and institutions, and held numerous discussions and reflections. There was no consensus on four key concepts examined - 'cooperative governance', academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and accountability.

In particular, the team found "academic freedom and institutional autonomy have been easily conflated, while accountability has been poorly or narrowly understood". But it was able to propose "contextualised conceptualisations" as a framework for evaluating steering.

The team accepted that cooperative governance "intends a multi-tiered system in which constituencies work cooperatively with government in a steering capacity, and in which institutional autonomy should facilitate academic freedom and accountability".

But there were different understandings of cooperation in practice and ideas about how to revitalise the state-sector relationship. There was a need to continuously strike a balance between autonomy and accountability, and for "high levels of participation and continuous engagement between all actors free to exercise their powers and their interests".

The team saw academic freedom comprising several elements: constitutional deliberative democracy (wide participation on issues and choices in society); scholarly freedom; participation by groups of academics in the academic governance of universities; institutional autonomy supporting scholarly freedom and 'academic rule'; and associated accountabilities.

South Africa's constitution allows everyone, not only academics and universities, academic freedom and the team explored how "a renewed concept and practice of academic freedom in higher education can benefit South African society at large".

Any reformulation of academic freedom needed to empower academics and to counter external and internal threats to the academy. It said: "State repression and-or interference, over-control by government bureaucracies and institutional hierarchies, commercial and functional impingements on academic work, and unreformed institutional cultures".[Karen - is there a word or two missing from the quote above?]

The team found the concept of 'substantive autonomy' suitable for South Africa's universities. Institutional governance should be exercised to ensure universities served social and public purposes rather than political, institutional or market goals, and to support scholarship, academic freedom and values integral to universities' accountabilities to society - "rather than to quell these in the name, for example, of efficiency or discipline".

It suggested a system-wide process of representative forums to promote engagement between universities, government, regulatory agencies and society, as well as sector initiatives to ensure higher education's self-regulation - as has been advocated by universities.

Regarding accountability, the task team found that policy referred narrowly to the use of public funding to achieve public policy goals. It proposed that government review whether it was behaving accountably in relation to higher education, and the creation of institutionalised forms of accountability including stakeholder representations to parliament, channels for engagement, and a mechanism to promote the accountability of councils to society.

The blanket application of amendments to the Higher Education Act since 1997, along with inadequate consultation, had led to a sense that government "does not always strike a balance between principles of institutional autonomy and accountability and that government commitment to consultation is lacking".

Accountable system planning, the team suggested, required improved engagement between actors; proactive contributions to policy and implementation by universities and the sector; proper information as the basis for planning; and "a balanced appreciation of the many ways in which higher education and academic freedom serve society".

Universities argued strongly that state financial steering was removed from their needs, exposing the core functions of institutions and academic freedom to risks arising from decreasing subsidy, earmarked funds allocated on unclear criteria, and increased reliance on private funding sources, the task team said.

"Specifically, there is concern that ministerial latitude to alter the definitions and values of public funding components, and to allocate earmarked funds in the absence of consultation, creates potential now and in the future for unaccountable funding decisions. The task team is clear that government must proactively explain its funding choices and be willing to engage in proper dialogue around these with higher education institutions."

Download the full report from the Council on Higher Education site


View the task team papers and reports on Council site

karen.macgregor@uw-news.com