|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
opinionAlso in this section: The closing of the university by Miguel Antonio Bernal If anything has contributed to the collapse of the University of Panama, it has been and is the fact that it's in the hands of a group of people who don't much like to account for their actions. Thus, everyone at the university with a sense of self-respect can do nothing less than reject the irresponsible way that this group is acting, most especially when they close the university to strengthen their anomie and pass a law to consolidate their autocracy, adulterate academic standards and create the conditions to exacerbate the University of Panama's deficiencies. In the middle of the convulsed situation through which the country is living, which was created by a false Social Security crisis that led to Law 17 being passed in the middle of the night, the university was closed for more than a week, opened for half a day and closed again for 10 more days. The school's hijackers have taken advantage of this situation to make the students and professor intellectually and morally back off so that they can impose --- behind society's back --- their concept of a closed university. Let me summarize the conclusions that other members of the university community have presented at legislative hearings, through the Institute for Political and International Studies (IEPI), about this mindless proposal: 1. Panama needs to adopt a law on higher education or an organic law on universities, not a new organic law for the University of Panama. 2. The proposed organic law presented to the National Assembly by Rector García de Paredes, far from "modernizing" the University of Panama merely deepens its crisis. The crisis is not economic, as the university authorities try to make people believe in their daily discourse. It's a crisis of leadership, generated by an obsolete management model that is not being corrected by this proposal but on the contrary introduces measures that accentuate the worst aspects of centralization, authoritarianism and bureaucracy. 3. This proposal transfers to the rector, whoever might hold that job, by way of the University General Council and as the contemplated statute provides, legislative functions that belong to the National Assembly and may not be transferred to any other entity, organization or person. 4. The essence of this proposal, its reason for existence, is none other that the current rector Gustavo García de Paredes's interest in staying on for a few more years as rector of the University of Panama. (See Article 30 of this proposed law.) 5. The proposed law that has been presented to the legislature is not the product of a democratic process of consultation and debate within the university, and the results of the "plebiscite" demonstrated its rejection by the university's professors and students. Education, now and in the future, establishes new forms in the search for and transmissio of knowledge, supported by information technologies based upon thos processes that have come to be called "the information society." Virtual education has now established its presence in some of our universities. It's urgent and obligatory that we incorporate ourselves into a process of making arrangements that contribute to improving higher education. An organic law on universities would be a basic instrument in such a healthy endeavor. Many countries have such laws. Today, when we talk about accreditation, a law of this nature become much more than merely necessary, but indispensable. An organic law on universities, or of higher education, is not a brake on the universities, given that it would by statute allow each of them to develop its norms, considering the characteristics and peculiarities of each. The focus of such laws is on fundamentals and general principles, so as to universalize precepts, making reference to maters like the functions, nature and autonomy of universities. They regulate universities' creation, recognition and legal status. They set the general structure for teaching and research, with general definitions of what constitute faculties, departments, schools, research institutes and the like which may be established. They define the structure of university governance and administration (basic minimum organs, generically defined according to the functions, bases or principles for which they were created) and authorities (nomenclature, general but not detailed description of responsibilities and attributes, minimum requisites, forms and processes for their designation). They set standards for teaching and diplomas. They provide for professors and researchers and the bases and principles of their incorporation, stability, hiring and firing, classification, tenure and remuneration. They deal with students and the general aspects about their admission, rights and responsibilities, scholarships and study aids. They create an order for administrative personnel and their hiring, remuneration, representation and participation. They regulate the economic and financial structures and endowments of universities, addressing both their autonomy and their adaptation to the general system of norms for all public institutions about such details as income, the elaboration, presentation and execution of budgets, the creation of foundations and non-governmental organizations, review, reports, accountings and audits. These kinds of laws include specified norms for private universities and those with foreign systems, for coordination among universities and other general necessities. It's necessary to say that such a law must be the result of the broadest participation and consultation. The policy of closure and and practice of turning their backs confirms the irrationality and lack of university spirit on the part of those backing the currently proposed law.
News | Business | Editorial | Opinion | Letters | Arts | Review | Community | Fun | Travel
|
||||||
|
