Recently, a number of influential voices have advocated a reduction of Government spending in education. The timing, frequency and thematic coherence of these calls resemble very closely the “ideological softening of the battlefield” which normally precedes a declaration of war. One such voice has been that of Acting Prime Minister Freundel Stuart.
According to the October 15 WEEKEND Nation, Mr Stuart has warned that “we’ve been overtaken now by events which are forcing us to rethink the goal of having a graduate in every household by the year 2015 and to . . . providing free education up to the tertiary level”.
Whilst he did not elaborate on these overwhelming “events”, he identified two “areas of concern”. The first was the “large number of graduates going abroad to work” and the second was the “male/female imbalance at institutions of higher learning”. Surprisingly, students of gender studies have not sought further clarification.
Whatever the justification for the abandonment of universal tertiary education, it is clear that such a development would signal a triumph of neo-liberal ideology in policymaking in Barbados. This would be the essential tragedy of the ongoing economic crisis, given the close link between free tertiary education, national independence, and economic development of Barbados.
At stake, is the very legacy of founding father of the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) and Barbados Prime Minister Errol Walton Barrow.
Given the historical significance of such a moment, it may be useful to provide words of advice to the key stakeholder groups, that is, policymakers, administrators of tertiary institutions, and students, on what their possible responses to the coming neoliberal onslaught should entail.
Government would be well advised that any cutting should be done with the precision of the surgeon rather than the brutality of the butcher. Indeed, Senator Maxine McClean in an earlier debate on the University of the West Indies (UWI) had hinted at a number of new approaches that would obviate the need for a wholesale amputation.
Among her suggestions included rethinking the policy on sponsorship for failing students and those who whimsically alter their degree options. In short, greater academic, rather than financial, responsibility would be placed on students. This would break the “freeness” mentality of failing students, and would make the tax less bitter in the mouth of taxpayers.
The UWI itself would need to wean itself away from dependence on the state and begin to establish links with the private sector, donor and grant agencies. Whilst this would see the entry of neoliberalism via the back door, it may also have the corresponding effect of deepening academic freedom, and establishing closer links between research, innovation and development.
Finally, the students have a political responsibility to defend territory won by their foreparents. They have successfully resisted neo-liberalism on previous occasions. They may once again be called upon to prove themselves worthy of free education.