|
May I reply briefly to Karl Schembri’s remark in MaltaToday, 5 March 2006, that Prof. Ellul Micallef, the University Rector, “defeated philosopher Kenneth Wain at the ballot with 22 out of 23 votes.” Of course, the remark stings, as Mr Schembri intended it to do, and will return again, as it is bound to do. So I have to reply to it, albeit reluctantly, inorder to put it in perspective.
First, the “ballot” he refers to was a vote taken by the University Council and not some democratic vote by the University staff, so that the word “ballot” is misleading. Second, I decided to contest the rectorship in 1996 after I had been approached by a number, not a small one, of my academic colleagues to do so, and after one of those colleagues sitting in Council at the time (not a Minister’s representative) offered to nominate me. The procedure, I was informed, was to present Council with a mission statement which would outline my vision and priorities for the University.
This I proceeded to do in an eight-page document which included a cv with my qualifications and experience in the field of education as an educationalist.
I was naive enough to believe that this document together with an interview with Council would be the basis for selection, and I did absolutely no canvassing on my own behalf before the election. At the time I was Dean of the Faculty of Education and I had not canvassed for that position either. Such canvassing is, in fact, against my principles. I believe one should be chosen, if at all, on one’s merits.
The interview with Council, many of whom did not know me, did not materialise. Instead I was told to make myself available to the Council members individually on the morning of the election.
From my meetings with the few members who turned up to meet me that morning, some of them clearly embarrassed, I quickly deduced that I stood no chance of winning. One of the Government selected members even spelled it out to me, told me that there was a block vote in my rival’s favour, and pressed me hard, even aggressively, to withdraw my
nomination. Of course, I did no such thing and preferred the metaphorical ‘humiliation’ of the vote to the real humiliation of standing down – something I would never do.
That experience taught me that competing with a serving pro-Rector who clearly enjoys the incumbent Rector’s support, is a waste of time. It is also nearly impossible to change a Rector who decides to stay on indefinitely without the unfortunate kind of manoeuvring the Government has resorted to in the present case. In short, the present system of selecting the University Rector is quite simply bad. It is bad in principle for the University for Rectors, whatever their merits, to stay on indefinitely and it is bad that Rectors are appointed by the Government.
Of course, it is too late to do anything about the present state of affairs but I believe that future Rectors should be selected on their merits, by an independent commission, which would include foreign academics, after an open and international call for applications, and that no Rector should be allowed to continue beyond a second term.
Finally, I offer Profs. Camilleri and Ellul Micallef who are both my friends, my very best wishes. I also promise to whoever wins (if there is a contest) a loyalty I have always extended to all the Rectors of the University in the 27 years I have been working here.
Prof Kenneth Wain
University of Malta
|
