|
" Academic freedom and the development of higher education in Ethiopia : "
Asgedom, Amare.
| Document Type
|
:
|
Latin Dissertation
|
| Record Number
|
:
|
1096342
|
| Doc. No
|
:
|
TLets437645
|
| Main Entry
|
:
|
Asgedom, Amare.
|
| Title & Author
|
:
|
Academic freedom and the development of higher education in Ethiopia :\ Asgedom, Amare.
|
| College
|
:
|
University of East Anglia
|
| Date
|
:
|
2007
|
| student score
|
:
|
2007
|
| Degree
|
:
|
Ph.D.
|
| Abstract
|
:
|
This study explores the fate of academic freedom and institutional autonomy inhigher education of Ethiopia by taking the case of the Addis Ababa University andseeks to understand how these were influenced by different political process(feudalism, socialism and democracy), which the country experienced over a periodof half a century (1950-2005). To explore the degree of expression or erosion ofacademic freedom and institutional autonomy, the focus is on three critical points: (i)the exploration of state-university relationships and how the state viewed theuniversity vis-a.-vis the university's claim for academic freedom and institutionalautonomy; (ii) how political regimes affected the erosion or expression of academicfreedom in the university (iii) the examination of the impact of political militancy andengagement of university staff and students on the relationship between theuniversity and the state.The study is grounded in my understanding (from philosophical and theoreticalanalysis) that academic freedom and institutional autonomy are necessary conditionsfor the proper functioning of the university's teaching, learning, research and publicservice. I have used a multi-method research approach, which draws on philosophicalanalysis, historical and ethnographic methods. The entire historical period (1950-2005) is divided into three distinct cases of political regimes, i.e., feudalism (1950-1974), socialism (1974-1991) and democratic federalism (1991-2005). The method ofanalysis combines both historical narratives (for showing the continuities of thehistorical process) and inter-case comparisons--to compare and contrast the differentcases (discontinuities of the historical process).The research suggests that: (1) the relationship between the university and the statehas been tangled with conflicting views of the state and the university regardingacademic freedom and the idea of a university. Whereas the state viewed theuniversity as part and parcel of its bureaucracy, fully accountable to national goalsand ideology, what Ronald Barnett (1997b) called a university of society, theacademic community viewed the university as an independent academic institutionwith a duty that includes a critical role of the state, albeit with accountability not onlyfor knowledge but also for service to society. The latter includes standing for the poorand national development not withstanding the position of the state. In this way, theacademic community believed in the idea of a university for society-as distinctfrom the state's belief, which stressed the accountability role of the university. Thesedivergent views led to hostile state-university relationships.(2) The tangled nature of state-university relationship was more or less true across allregimes-feudalism, socialism and democratic federalism-albeit with somedifferences in intensity and type of threat to academic freedom. The embryonicVIllcooperative relationship that appeared in the early life history of the university (whenexpatriate faculty dominated teaching and administration) fractured towards the crisisyears of the feudal system when the academic community, especially students,violently turned against the state. The vestiges of academic freedom and institutionalautonomy vanished under the Marxist regime that placed the university undercomplete silence and mere ideological compliance after 1974, the year of theEthiopian Socialist Revolution. Red terror was used as an instrument for controllingfreethinking and dissent. Professors were forced to teach prescribed courses, useMarxist research methods and serve as laborers in seasonal crop harvesting periodsand in construction work of resettlement areas. In 1991, civil liberties (academicfreedom in the sense of the 'general theory') were guaranteed by the federaldemocratic state that replaced the socialist regime. Yet, state university relationshipremained the same due to ideological differences (the state ideology of ethnicautonomy versus faculty ideology of nation state), mistrust and lack of tolerance.Class disruptions, closure of the university, dismissal of professors, students andadministrators characterized the state-university relationship, during this period. Thisnew relationship generated a very unstable and weak university administration, whichwas often sandwiched between the state's requirement to account to it and thefaculty's expectation of self-accountability. Not even elected presidents were able toplay mediatory roles in this conflict. Following the higher education reform of 2002,professors and lecturers claimed they had lost many of their freedoms, mainly: (i) thefreedom to select their future colleagues; (ii) the freedom to select their students; (iii)the freedom to participate in university legislative process; (iv) the freedom to decidethe norms of student evaluation; (v) the freedom to decide the contents of theircurricula.(3) Political militancy of the faculty and students weakened the possibility of acooperative state-university relationship in all political histories of the university. Themilitant actions of students and faculty against the state during the feudal regimefacilitated state intervention in the affairs of the university, which in tum, broughtabout collegial disintegration and self-inflicted threat to the academic freedom of thestudents, faculty and administration. The Marxist ideology had the effect of dividingthe academic community into classes of revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries,which, in tum, generated an environment where everybody became a threat to theacademic freedom of every other. During the reign of the federal democratic statethat came to power after 1991, the ideological position of the academic communityextended to rejecting the new constitution--which was premised on ethnic autonomy.The dominant faculty (including a section of the students) subscribed to the idea of anation-state with a centrist unitary government. The latter seriously believed thatethnic autonomy leads to national disintegration contrary to the state's belief of theidea of 'unity in diversity'. This ideological difference divided the academiccommunity itself (which was diverse in ethnic composition) into different camps andgenerated a campus environment where every person qualified to be a threat to theacademic freedom of every other.IXThis research has implications about the critical need for cooperative and deliberativestate-university relations by adopting a stance of mutual accommodation andtolerance if the university is to contribute to national development by maintaining itscardinal values, academic freedom and its precondition, institutional autonomy. Ihave noted that during the early periods of Haile Selassie I University (the old nameof Addis Ababa University), the idea of a university for society operated productivelydue to the context of mutual trust and understanding between the state and theuniversity. One learns from the Ethiopian case study that a critical stance of theuniversity could not be tolerated by the state if its criticisms affect the legitimacy ofstate-power. It is not, however, clear to what extent a university could be critical ofthe state and still maintain trust and support form it. But, a moral stance ofmoderation in one's criticisms could be tolerated more than an extremist position ofcritique, which might deter negotiations and deliberations. In this connection,Mazrui said, "What a university owes to government is neither defiance norsubservience. It is intelligent cooperation, respecting the academic's right to beskeptical without being subversive; sympathetic without being subservient" (Mazrui,1978:275). A kind of partial autonomy or what Enslin and Kissak (2005) calledconditional autonomy in the context of deliberative democracy would help Ethiopiato address the different needs and requirements of change and social transformation.The faculty has the added responsibility of promoting a deliberative culture andabandoning its old culture of engagement in violent political actions. It can contributeimmensely if its main commitment is switched to promoting intellectual culture bysustaining a community of philosophers who engage in teaching students; anddisseminating knowledge to serve the broader society.
|
|
|
:
|
This demands a commitmentto believe in the values of professional collegiality and self-criticality in addition toits traditional values of critiquing knowledge and society (mainly the state).
|
| Added Entry
|
:
|
University of East Anglia
|
| |