Unprofessional Appointment of Colombo University VC

The University of Colombo ( UOC) is the jewel in the crown of the University System in Sri Lanka. It is globally accepted as the pioneer seat of higher learning, counting 151 years of medicine and 101 years of Arts and Science learning in this beautiful but unfortunate land of ours. The UOC has 35,000 undergraduates and over 1,600 academic staff with nine Faculties and nine Institutions of learning.

Due to the sustained academic activity for over 100 years, the UOC is respected as the leading hub for generating fresh ideas on a scientific basis. Its student body is considered a rich investment and is continuously nurtured to become responsible and honest citizens throughout Sri Lanka and the world.

The Vice Chancellor ( VC ) has the task of working to sustain a student friendly environment, improve management systems using modern technology, increase its research profile, make it the ‘Think Tank’ of the Government and all its agencies and produce future academic Leaders.

The unprofessional act by the President in using considerations outside the needs of the highest seat of learning when appointing a new Vice Chancellor for the University of Colombo, three months before the due date of April 12. 2022, severely dented the little respect the independent academia, undergraduates and the academia had for the President.

In fact, recently when a politically motivated Buddhist priest whose temple premises was used as a meeting place for the politics of the government party when in opposition, was becoming critical of the government, he was promptly appointed as the Chancellor of the Colombo University. His criticisms were contained as expected, but at the expense of the dignity of the University.

It is very unfortunate that a Sri Lankan University has also become an institution where pledges made during an election campaign and thereafter to uphold transparency, objectivity, compliance with the principles of good governance and meritocracy, is blatantly violated by the President.

The Members of the Council, conforming to the well- established processes contained in written guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission ( UGC ) for awarding marks to applicants for the Post of Vice Chancellor, is known to have given the incumbent VC Senior Professor Dr Chandrika Wijeyaratne 89.6 marks as opposed to 66 marks to Professor H D Karunaratne and 64 marks to Dr Prathiba Mahanamahewa, after several hours of exhaustive appraisals.

The Council had evaluated the incumbent’s motivational performance during the first period of office and considered carefully the written documents and formal presentations of future plans made by all the candidates, before their recommendation was finalized.

But the President, weak and inefficient in governance and prone to making weak appointments to sensitive SOEs, ignored the professional and in-depth evaluation made by the Council members in selecting a VC for the UOC also, despite the recommendation that the incumbent VC ‘s position should be extended for the second term.

It is widely believed that this was due to the pressure from the morally corrupt and politically motivated Viyathmaga academics and associated party supporters operating within the party profile.

The University community is aware that the members of the Council after reading the media announcement that the incumbent, who had successfully steered the University through the pandemic and earned the respect of the students and academia was not to be reappointed as recommended by them, wrote to the President on January 25, 2022 and requested the President to call for the marks of each candidate and ascertain for himself before making a judgment against the Council recommendation.

They stated ” overlooking the marking outcomes and the significantly wide disparity of the placement of the candidate who secured the highest placement and greatest aggregate of marks as opposed to those who were placed below the said candidate” , would amount to “refusing to uphold the value and integrity of the process of selection” of a VC and the “professionalism of the members of the interview panel”.

The President not only ignored the Councils recommendation but paid scant respect to their appeal to “ensure that the University of Colombo proudly continues to retain its due position in the international rankings”.

To the alumni of the University like me, the President’s actions portrayed another display why the country is in in this poor state economically and politically after 1948.

The youth of this country, the independent academia, people of all faiths and races and political color, have launched a continuous protest for the last seven days, demanding the resignation of the President and his government and correction of the wrong decisions taken by politicians in the past.

This President’s inability to accept overwhelming marking difference between the incumbent VC and the President’s decision to appoint Professor Karunaratne whose marks were well below the best, is akin to a tender scam or forcing farmers to use organic manure overnight and many more.

In the important field of University education, it will bring more negative results to Higher Education in Sri Lanka, if the due process is not followed in the Universities, where the country’s best students are learning and the academia is teaching.

COLOMBO UNIVERSITY ALUMNUS

FACULTY OF LAW