Dear Editor,
A little over a year ago, I was forced to shout at the Vice-Chancellor in order to get my demand for guaranteed improvements heard, as he informed the students of the impending UG fee and tuition hike. At that time I had to endure the chatter of condemnation at my ‘rudeness’ by Dr Patsy Francis and Thomas Singh as they echoed their support for increased tuition fees. This mixed reaction on the hike in UG tuition was clearly reflected in an article by one local paper. By the end of that week the ‘buse out’ had captured the attention of the nation, and Freddie Kissoon titled his Friday column ‘Guyana: A Belizean student shames a nation of sheep.’
Since then the position of the staff has shifted 180 degrees and they have issued a motion of no confidence against the VC. In line with the beautiful dance between freedom of speech and the right of an individual to his reputation, the VC is suing for defamation.
While I don’t wish to pronounce on the merits of the VC’s suit, I would like to point out that in the Guyanese defamation case of Bacchus v Bacchus, Justice Massiah posited that the court should take into account the prevailing public attitudes in the particular jurisdiction. Applying the esteemed Justice’s pronouncement the proper test, therefore is what the average Guyanese citizen thinks about this matter.
One has to bear in mind that the VC, as the CEO of the national university, implemented an unpopular tuition and fee increase and was the focus of a highly publicised 5 week industrial action and student upheaval. The state of the university and the cry for change and development through education in the country undoubtedly points to the need for a high calibre of personnel at the helm of the university. The failure of the VC to positively impact the image of the university has unquestionably lowered him in my estimation and quite possibly in the minds of right-thinking members of society.
It is against this backdrop that the words of the no confidence motion should be assessed by the court. Should the court find that the VC has made out his claim it will be for Dr Ifill to establish a defence. If she cannot, the VC will have one final payday. However, if she does justify the content of the no confidence motion this could affect the career of the VC.
There have been assertions on social media that the lawsuit is an attempt to bully the unions. I must say that I find this view appealing. Since my involvement in the fight for improvement at UG I have noted the VC’s big stick approach to dealing with those opposing him. The recent filing of a defamation action could be yet another attempt at union busting and a poor reflection on his human resource management skills and thus his ability to run the University of Guyana.
However, the cynic in me finds the notion that the VC is attempting to cast doubt in the academic community on the validity of the motion with an eye to the future, even more appealing. This has to be seen in light of the lengthy delays and backlog of civil cases in Guyana. The VC’s contract comes to an end early next year and he is presumably seeking employment elsewhere. It is rather convenient that the VC is now able to tell a prospective employer, that he has an action pending before the court in order to vindicate his name. Such a strategic move must be acknowledged. It is a pity such ingenuity was not applied to raising the standards of UG without raising the fees and tuition.
In closing, my vote of no confidence in the VC was in the form of a ‘buse out’ and the blocking of the UG gate; I am pleased that the unions are now on the same page. I applaud the efforts of the decision makers to seek high calibre individuals for the post of VC and Chancellor of UG. These are the changes UG needs to make its way back to its former glory, and I am delighted that I was here to see the transformation take root.
Yours faithfully,
Glenfield G Dennison
