ASUU: Sullied by internal indiscretions 

By Levi Obijiofor 

Friday, 2 May 2008 

There is something cynical and sinister about the leadership of the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) and its use of intermittent strikes to disrupt teaching and learning activities in the universities. Four days ago, ASUU announced it was starting another round of the so-called “warning strike” designed to force federal education authorities to recall the dismissed 49 academic staff members of the University of Ilorin (UNILORIN).  

Through the “warning strike”, ASUU has again underlined its sustained objection to the dismissal of their colleagues at UNILORIN. The case of the “UNILORIN 49” has become something of a nightmare in the psyche of many parents and university students in Nigeria. The standoff has dragged on for years without the prospects of an amicable resolution. Although countless negotiations were held between federal authorities and ASUU leaders, finding a middle ground has proved more elusive than resolving the substantial issues.  

Even when both parties agreed on certain conditions to resolve the face-off, the agreements turned out to be dummies which federal authorities sold to ASUU leaders. ASUU, justifiably outraged, has maintained its threats to disrupt university education until the matter has been resolved.  

University education in the country has now been undermined significantly by sporadic and sometimes unjustifiable strikes sponsored by the leadership of ASUU. But, sadly, strikes have not achieved for ASUU what it originally set out to accomplish – the reinstatement of their former colleagues at the University of Ilorin. Unfortunately for ASUU, every strike has its consequences. Every strike has helped to undercut ASUU’s image in the court of public opinion. ASUU-induced strikes have succeeded in antagonizing university students and their parents, as well as university administrators and federal education authorities. When ASUU is despised by the same people whose interests it claims to be representing, you’ve got to wonder whose interests are paramount.  

In the last eight years, ASUU confronted Olusegun Obasanjo in the arm wrestling duel over the case of the “UNILORIN 49”. ASUU leaders emerged from the battlefront with bloodied noses because of Obasanjo’s contempt for university teachers and moreso because Obasanjo never takes orders from anyone.  In Obasanjo’s view, the use of strikes by ASUU as an instrument of coercion designed to settle industrial disputes is nothing but a devil’s alternative adopted only by union leaders with cowboy mentality.  

It is perhaps appropriate now for ASUU to evaluate its industrial relations strategies because, in every battle, field commanders must review their performance regularly to see if the war plan is going according to expectations. If the plan is not working, new strategies must be devised and applied. In its conflict with the federal government over the dismissed UNILORIN staff, the use of strikes has failed to achieve any meaningful results for ASUU. But the ASUU leadership has stuck stubbornly with the old-fashioned strategy of using strikes to win industrial disputes. But, you see, there are times when strikes serve their objectives and when they fail to yield good outcomes.  

Regardless of the perceived justifications for insisting on the reinstatement of the “UNILORIN 49”, the critical questions are: Does this case justify disrupting university education indefinitely? Are there other avenues for seeking justice for the dismissed university staff? The second question is relevant because ASUU seems to have foreclosed the legal option in its fight with the Federal Government. Rather than engage in strikes, ASUU should take legal action if it feels strongly that the dismissal of their colleagues was illegal and unjust.  

The case of the “UNILORIN 49” may have everything to do with fighting injustice but it does not, in my view, advance the quality of university education in the country. There are more urgent issues that should attract the attention of ASUU. For example, if ASUU is truly a responsible watchdog of quality university education, it should be pushing the government to increase funds to universities in order to enhance excellence in teaching and research.  

ASUU should be concerned about the crumbling quality of equipment in the universities. How can scientific research and knowledge be advanced in the universities when basic equipment and infrastructure are unavailable or have since decayed? ASUU has an obligation to ensure that teaching and research at the universities are conducted in an environment that promotes learning.  

Constant disruption to academic studies is as much a statement about the poverty of ideas that has gripped higher education planners and ASUU leaders in the country as it is about the lack of knowledge of how to achieve best practice in teaching and learning and research. The Federal Government and ASUU are dragging university education backward.  

By leaning on the case of the “UNILORIN 49” to launch intermittent strikes, ASUU has shown that it is insensitive to the educational needs and learning objectives of thousands of university students. It is a lousy excuse to use the unresolved issue of the “UNILORIN 49” to hold the nation’s higher education system hostage. ASUU’s tunnel vision of strikes as the only instrument to settle industrial disputes is dated and ineffective. It should be dropped. 

As ASUU fights for justice for its members, it must also admit that there are serious internal contradictions among its members. These contradictions undermine ASUU’s credibility, not least the poor quality of teaching which some university teachers provide to students. ASUU ought to be worried too that many of its members are research-redundant. Research drives teaching and teaching feeds research. A research-redundant academic staff member is a deadwood in the university system. 

For ASUU to earn some respect in the public, its leadership and members must be disciplined and accountable. University academics in Nigeria must be accountable to their students and their employers by undergoing a transparent and rigorous system of annual appraisal. Staff promotion and yearly salary increment must be earned and should no longer be taken for granted anymore.  

Here is how to compel ASUU members to sit up and perform. Academic staff seeking promotion or salary increment must provide, on a yearly basis, proof of demonstrated achievements in the areas of: (a). teaching, including proof of introduction of innovative teaching practices; (b). research, including evidence of successful competitive grant applications at home or abroad, as well as research-based publications in top tier journals; (c). evidence of successful supervision of research higher degree students such as PhD, MPhil and Honours students; academic staff should also realise that deliberately failing research students is a mark of poor supervision; and (d). evidence of effective involvement in community service activities and student recruitment workshops and seminars.  

The moment ASUU leaders and their members are subjected to this fair system of yearly evaluation, there would be little time for them to engage in “extra-curricular” activities such as endless strikes and demonstrations. A yearly assessment system would (hopefully) motivate academic staff to set measurable targets in the four areas of performance measures.  

Owing to numerous abuses that go on in the universities, there is a general impression (rightly or wrongly) that some Nigerian academics often engage in practices that cannot be tolerated in overseas universities. And they get away with those practices. For example, they can afford not to teach and still receive their salaries. They can afford to engage in substandard teaching practices and still be rewarded. They can afford not to do research and be remunerated. They can afford not to publish and still be paid. They can afford to engage in pamphleteering and still claim they are publishing in reputable academic journals.  

Public perceptions of the excesses of university academics might have been overstated but they also include the notion that some academics can afford to subject students to physical and psychological abuse, including sexual harassment without being severely sanctioned by university administrators. These are the internal contradictions that ASUU must fight in the university system. And they are the paradoxes that ASUU leadership has cleverly shoved underneath the foot mat in their office front door.  

These contradictory perceptions underline public disappointment with the quality of university education in the country. In light of these indiscretions, ASUU is now perceived as the quintessential faultfinder, always quick to pick out the speck in someone else’s eyes but slow to identify the huge log lodged in his own eyes.