<p>The Government of Karnataka appointed some time ago a committee headed by Vasudev Are, former chairman, Defence Research and Development Organisation, to suggest amendments to the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (KSU Act).</p>.<p>Karnataka thus wanted to be the first state to implement the New Education Policy 2020, with Deputy Chief Minister Dr Ashwath Narayan, who also holds the higher education portfolio, being keen on it. The Atre Committee is seized of the matter and will shortly submit its report. </p>.<p>Here are some suggestions on a few key aspects for consideration by the committee and the government: </p>.<p> Firstly, let us take up the obnoxious system of appointing persons called the `Authorities of the University’, consisting of the Vice-Chancellor and the Syndicate. Their appointment is often mired in controversy with reports of aspirants for the post of Vice-Chancellors and membership of the Syndicate indulging in unethical practices to gain positions. </p>.<p>Luckily, the NEP talks of creating new structures like the Board of Governors, replacing the Syndicate. If this key recommendation is to be implemented, the government should seize the opportunity and bring about bold reforms by way of changes in appointment to these Authorities. </p>.<p>As for the Board of Governors, the existing practice of Syndicates consisting of the government and governor/chancellor’s nominees should be dispensed with as it gives room for not only interference in the functioning of universities but also lobbying for nominations for memberships of Syndicate. </p>.<p>Most often, undeserving persons get nominated with an eye on membership of Affiliation Committees and other committees like the building committee, purchase committee etc, for obvious gains. Attractions for people seeking such positions can be removed if these committees are filled by academicians of the universities themselves.</p>.<p> However, as it was suggested by the earlier government in its amendments to KSU Act, physical infrastructure development work may be entrusted to the Central Public Works Department or the state PWDs. </p>.<p>My suggestion is that with the Vice-Chancellor as chairman, the BOG should consist of: 1) two former Vice Chancellors drawn from other universities; 2) two members drawn from the industry; 3) two from among the alumni; 4) two eminent public intellectuals, one each from within the state and one from outside the state; 5) two principals of affiliated colleges on rotation; and, 6) one member each representing the students and non-teaching staff. </p>.<p>The BoG should meet once a month and decisions be taken by consensus or by a majority of the members present. Proceedings of the BOG should be conducted transparently in virtual mode and available for stakeholders to view it. Possibility of corruption can be greatly removed in the process.</p>.<p> As regards the appointment of Vice-Chancellors, there is need for a thorough restructuring of the search committees constituted for such purposes in which government’s and chancellor’s role should be completely taken away. </p>.<p>The government’s role should be confined only to providing financial grants and ensuring the adherence of norms laid down for admission and appointments. The practice of government nominee, chancellor’s nominee and university nominee should be done away with and replaced by drawing an eminent former Vice-Chancellor/academician of proven integrity and administrative capability as chairman. </p>.<p>The other members of the committee should include: a University Grants Committee nominee, an eminent public intellectual from within the state, an industry representative, and eminent alumni of the university concerned).</p>.<p> Applications for the post of Vice-Chancellors can be invited through advertisement in the university website and newspapers. The bio data of the candidates who apply for such positions should be hosted on the website for viewing by stakeholders. </p>.<p>The committee should allot marks for candidates’ scholarship in terms of teaching and research, proven administrative capabilities and capacity for fund raising. The search committee can have an interactive session with the candidates, ask them to present their blueprint for the development of the university, all of which can be conducted transparently for stakeholder viewership via virtual platforms. </p>.<p>The marks obtained by candidates in the above fields should be consolidated leading to submission of a panel of names to the Chancellor for formal appointment of the VC. The Chancellor should have no discretionary powers in the matter. </p>.<p class="CrossHead">General public</p>.<p>The KSU Act should be amended to help our universities have an ombudsman, with a retired judge of the High Court being appointed to the position to adjudicate on matters referred to him by the V-C and or brought to his/ her attention by the general public. </p>.<p>The decision of the ombudsman should be mandatorily implemented by the university administration. This reform would considerably remove corruption in universities. </p>.<p>The most important issue concerns faculty accountability. The best way to ensure that is to put in place an institutional structure of academic audit. Faculty members must mandatorily submit and upload on university website their annual plans for research and new modes of teaching, specially for multi-disciplinary courses. </p>.<p>Their annual self-appraisal reports will have to be evaluated by external peers and their recommendations strictly implemented. </p>.<p>As for promoting excellence in teaching, research, innovation, entrepreneurship and social contribution, as outlined by the NEP, they can be done even without amending the KSU Act. </p>.<p>The NEP’s recommendations like the introduction of four-year courses, with entry, exit and re-entry provisions, one or two years PG Courses, and setting up of Academic Bank of Credits for credit transfers can be implemented by universities and colleges on their own under dynamic and visionary Vice-Chancellors, supported by pro-active Board of Governors, without amending the Act. Is the government ready for bold reforms in higher education?</p>.<p><em>(The writer is former Professor of Political Science and former Dean, Faculty of Arts, Bangalore University)</em></p>
<p>The Government of Karnataka appointed some time ago a committee headed by Vasudev Are, former chairman, Defence Research and Development Organisation, to suggest amendments to the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (KSU Act).</p>.<p>Karnataka thus wanted to be the first state to implement the New Education Policy 2020, with Deputy Chief Minister Dr Ashwath Narayan, who also holds the higher education portfolio, being keen on it. The Atre Committee is seized of the matter and will shortly submit its report. </p>.<p>Here are some suggestions on a few key aspects for consideration by the committee and the government: </p>.<p> Firstly, let us take up the obnoxious system of appointing persons called the `Authorities of the University’, consisting of the Vice-Chancellor and the Syndicate. Their appointment is often mired in controversy with reports of aspirants for the post of Vice-Chancellors and membership of the Syndicate indulging in unethical practices to gain positions. </p>.<p>Luckily, the NEP talks of creating new structures like the Board of Governors, replacing the Syndicate. If this key recommendation is to be implemented, the government should seize the opportunity and bring about bold reforms by way of changes in appointment to these Authorities. </p>.<p>As for the Board of Governors, the existing practice of Syndicates consisting of the government and governor/chancellor’s nominees should be dispensed with as it gives room for not only interference in the functioning of universities but also lobbying for nominations for memberships of Syndicate. </p>.<p>Most often, undeserving persons get nominated with an eye on membership of Affiliation Committees and other committees like the building committee, purchase committee etc, for obvious gains. Attractions for people seeking such positions can be removed if these committees are filled by academicians of the universities themselves.</p>.<p> However, as it was suggested by the earlier government in its amendments to KSU Act, physical infrastructure development work may be entrusted to the Central Public Works Department or the state PWDs. </p>.<p>My suggestion is that with the Vice-Chancellor as chairman, the BOG should consist of: 1) two former Vice Chancellors drawn from other universities; 2) two members drawn from the industry; 3) two from among the alumni; 4) two eminent public intellectuals, one each from within the state and one from outside the state; 5) two principals of affiliated colleges on rotation; and, 6) one member each representing the students and non-teaching staff. </p>.<p>The BoG should meet once a month and decisions be taken by consensus or by a majority of the members present. Proceedings of the BOG should be conducted transparently in virtual mode and available for stakeholders to view it. Possibility of corruption can be greatly removed in the process.</p>.<p> As regards the appointment of Vice-Chancellors, there is need for a thorough restructuring of the search committees constituted for such purposes in which government’s and chancellor’s role should be completely taken away. </p>.<p>The government’s role should be confined only to providing financial grants and ensuring the adherence of norms laid down for admission and appointments. The practice of government nominee, chancellor’s nominee and university nominee should be done away with and replaced by drawing an eminent former Vice-Chancellor/academician of proven integrity and administrative capability as chairman. </p>.<p>The other members of the committee should include: a University Grants Committee nominee, an eminent public intellectual from within the state, an industry representative, and eminent alumni of the university concerned).</p>.<p> Applications for the post of Vice-Chancellors can be invited through advertisement in the university website and newspapers. The bio data of the candidates who apply for such positions should be hosted on the website for viewing by stakeholders. </p>.<p>The committee should allot marks for candidates’ scholarship in terms of teaching and research, proven administrative capabilities and capacity for fund raising. The search committee can have an interactive session with the candidates, ask them to present their blueprint for the development of the university, all of which can be conducted transparently for stakeholder viewership via virtual platforms. </p>.<p>The marks obtained by candidates in the above fields should be consolidated leading to submission of a panel of names to the Chancellor for formal appointment of the VC. The Chancellor should have no discretionary powers in the matter. </p>.<p class="CrossHead">General public</p>.<p>The KSU Act should be amended to help our universities have an ombudsman, with a retired judge of the High Court being appointed to the position to adjudicate on matters referred to him by the V-C and or brought to his/ her attention by the general public. </p>.<p>The decision of the ombudsman should be mandatorily implemented by the university administration. This reform would considerably remove corruption in universities. </p>.<p>The most important issue concerns faculty accountability. The best way to ensure that is to put in place an institutional structure of academic audit. Faculty members must mandatorily submit and upload on university website their annual plans for research and new modes of teaching, specially for multi-disciplinary courses. </p>.<p>Their annual self-appraisal reports will have to be evaluated by external peers and their recommendations strictly implemented. </p>.<p>As for promoting excellence in teaching, research, innovation, entrepreneurship and social contribution, as outlined by the NEP, they can be done even without amending the KSU Act. </p>.<p>The NEP’s recommendations like the introduction of four-year courses, with entry, exit and re-entry provisions, one or two years PG Courses, and setting up of Academic Bank of Credits for credit transfers can be implemented by universities and colleges on their own under dynamic and visionary Vice-Chancellors, supported by pro-active Board of Governors, without amending the Act. Is the government ready for bold reforms in higher education?</p>.<p><em>(The writer is former Professor of Political Science and former Dean, Faculty of Arts, Bangalore University)</em></p>