Editorial | Coup d’état at UWI?

Whatever may be the grand principles claimed by Hilary Beckles for the committee he established to investigate how his reappointment as vice-chancellor of The University of the West Indies (UWI) was handled, there is little doubt that the action is being seen as a coup d’état against the UWI’s chancellor, Robert Bermudez, and an attempt to make the university’s council pliant to his will.

These perceptions, even if they are wrong, can only cause grave reputational damage to the university, which, ironically, is precisely what Sir Hilary has implied he was attempting to avoid, or reverse. In the circumstances, it is urgent that the governments of the English-speaking Caribbean countries that own the university find a way to impose a truce on the parties.

For, if in the end Mr Bermudez is ejected from the chancellorship, or, at his own volition, decides to throw in the towel, it will not be easy for the shareholder governments to persuade someone of substance to succeed him. Which is not to suggest that it would be impossible. International benefactors, too, are also likely to be skittish about the university and circumspect about putting money into it.

The current imbroglio is part of the complex politics of the UWI that has its roots in a 2020 governance review of the institution that was commissioned by Mr Bermudez and produced by a commission chaired by the distinguished Caribbean jurist, Sir Dennis Byron, whose last post was as president of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

Among the commission’s other members were the current governor of the Bank of Jamaica, Richard Byles; Jamaican businesswoman and former banker Jacqueline Sharp; and Sir Hilary’s predecessor as the UWI’s vice-chancellor, Professor Nigel Harris. Much of what the task force found would have reflected on Prof Harris’ decade-long tenure.

TWO TAKEAWAYS

There were two stark takeaways from the Byron report.

First, with Caribbean governments cutting back on their financial contributions and big deficits being racked up annually, the UWI faced an existential crisis. For example, at the time of the report, UWI’s composite financial index (CFI), a matrix used by not-for-profit entities to measure their financial health, was minus 1.21, when a positive 3.0 was considered par.

“The trend suggests that institutional re-engineering, substantive programmatic adjustments, and a structured cash-conservation programme, in combination, are now probably all due,” the report concluded.

Among the commission’s recommended fixes was for UWI students to contribute 40 per cent of the economic cost of their education, instead of the implied 20 per cent. That hike would be accompanied by easier access to student loans and more flexible repayment mechanisms, possibly including indexing repayments to salaries.

The commission’s second major observation was about the university’s byzantine, and often unresponsive and unaccountable, governance/management structure, which concentrated power in a few hands. It proposed an overhaul of the system, including the establishment of an executive committee of the council, UWI’s highest decision-making body, to bring it closer to the operational management of the institution. This was interpreted in some quarters as a grab for power by Mr Bermudez, a successful Trinidadian entrepreneur and corporate leader.

Sir Hilary offered a different vision of the financial future. It did not include raising the proportion of the operating costs paid by students. Instead, stability would be achieved by reducing expenditure and increasing income from entrepreneurial and similar activities. One idea included raising equity from the private sector, although the specifics of that scheme have not yet been unveiled.

It is not publicly known what is Mr Bermudez’s view of the long-term sustainability of Sir Hilary’s economic ideas for the university, or the extent to which he embraced the commission’s report. Critics, however, claim that the report was instigated as a cudgel to be used to thwart Sir Hilary’s reappointment – a claim rejected by Justice Byron.

FAILED PLAN

Regional debate over the issue, initially sotto voce, and then openly, was tinged with ethnicity and race, pitting Mr Bermudez, the white Trinidadian businessman and presumed plutocrat, against the brilliant, black Barbadian historian and advocate for reparations for slavery.

If, indeed, Mr Bermudez’s intention was to unseat Sir Hilary, the plan failed. Last April, the UWI’s council reappointed him as vice-chancellor for six years, despite the opposition of some governments. It appeared the issue had quieted.

But it emerged last week that Sir Hilary – using, he said, his authority under the university’s statutes and ordinances – had established the committee, chaired by Jamaican lawyer Milton Samuda, to probe how his reappointment was approached. Sir Hilary and his executive group, the resolution establishing the committee said, believed that the handling of the reappointment had created “a crisis within the human resources culture of the university”. Further, a background document suggested that the two contentious issues may have damaged the reputation of the UWI.

We, however, fear that any damage previously done to the UWI’s reputation can only be exacerbated by the latest fracas. Moreover, the abrupt and accusatory tone of the questions posed by the committee to Chancellor Bermudez about Sir Hilary’s reappointment will hardly inspire a frank and collegial airing of the issues. It would be surprising if recent developments are not seen as being akin to a CEO in open challenge, rebellion even, to his chairman and his board.

The University of the West Indies is a premier regional institution. Next to cricket, it carries the aspirations of the Caribbean people. And more than cricket in recent decades, it has inspired pride and hope, not least by its emergence, under Hilary Beckles’ leadership, in the top one per cent of the world’s universities. We must be careful about damaging what is the best of ourselves.