USP’s Fiji bogey
NO one ever accuses New Zealand or Australia of hogging the benefits of any of their universities, just because their students and staff are in the majority, while having students and staff from around the world.
But for decades now and again during this current USP crisis, Fiji has faced accusations that it derives unfair advantages in facilities, student numbers, graduates and staff, because of the presence of USP facilities on Fiji soil, and that the Fiji Government wants to “take over” USP.
In the seventies and eighties, these accusations (which I call the “USP Fiji Bogey”) used to come from a small “Pacific Islander” group and a few entrenched elite expatriates.
They fought tooth and nail to limit the appointment of Fiji citizens to USP and especially Fijians of Indian descent academic staff, who they refused to include as “Pacific Islanders” — another bogey rearing its ugly head at Auckland University.
Nevertheless, this powerful group succeeded in pressuring USP to “decentralise” faculties (like Law and Agriculture) and Institutes (many) to other Pacific Island countries, where most staggered along, with the exception of USP Centres which were genuinely necessary. Their lack of success has never been examined by USP Council, not even during the recent vacuous USP@50 celebrations which warranted a comprehensive stock-take of USP.
This “Fiji bogey” has been again renewed during the current USP crisis and surprisingly echoed by a former USP senior academic, who incidentally also was part of our group fighting the regionalisation battles in the eighties.
Completely forgotten is that USP was created as a regional university in 1968 only because the departing colonial British tried to save resources by not having to create separate universities for Samoa, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu (which their own governments did eventually).
Sadly, while commendably standing up to the bullying by the current Fiji Government, the smaller Pacific countries seem to forget the decades of generosity of successive Fiji Governments — not just over USP but also other regional issues such as settlement in Fiji and employment of regional (CROP) organisations.
Why a regional USP?
Pacific people should ponder that British white settler colonies in Australia and New Zealand very sensibly saw the need for universities for their then equally small populations, 100 years before USP was established in 1968.
The University of Sydney was established in 1851; the University of Otago (my first alma mater) was established in 1869; and Canterbury University was set up in 1873, just one year before Fiji became a colony in 1874.
Historians know that the British Government refused to ‘waste’ scarce resources on universities for colonies — because they, like Fiji, were there only to serve Britain’s needs, and not to create a “Babu class of educated natives”, which was the view of racist white colonials.
But with the far more aggressive colonies of Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados and Guyana, Britain was forced to establish the University of West Indies 30 years earlier than USP.
Forgotten fact: there was no real need for a “regional” University of the South Pacific. It would have been far simpler for the British to establish a “University of Fiji”. This could have then accepted enrolments from all the other Pacific countries, just as has been done by Australian and New Zealand universities for more than 100 years, with no complaints of Australia and NZ hogging the benefits of their university.
But largely as a result of British colonial neglect of the education of indigenous Fijians, the early USP saw a predominance of Fijians of Indian descent amongst the students, graduates and staff. This was purely a result of the historical thirst for education among Fijians of Indian descent in colonial Fiji.
That was deeply resented by the then Pacific Islander and expatriate clique at USP.
The anti-Fiji and anti-Indian racism in early USP
In early USP, while the largest number of students and staff were from Fiji, the senior academic and administrative staff were expatriates, usually of the same nationality as the Vice-Chancellor at the time.
This happened ‘naturally’ because of USP’s application of discriminatory salary scales called “Schemes of Supplementation” funded by the respective donors- Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
This continued until the now-forgotten West Indian Vice-Chancellor (the late Dr James Maraj) promoted many Pacific Islanders to senior positions.
These few Pacific Islanders, in cahoots with an elite expatriate group, fought tooth and nail to discourage the appointment, training and promotions of Fiji citizens, resulting in great grief and trauma for many of us, with our scars not healing for decades.
Understanding these conflicts might also help today’s USP stakeholders to partly understand why some of USP’s former leadership were so compromising towards the Bainimarama Government.
There is an article by the late Professor Ron Crocombe and Uentabo Neemia (a junior i-Kiribati subordinate of his) in the journal Pacific Perspectives and also in Fiji Sun (of 16 March 1985) accusing the Fiji Government of wanting to take over USP (so what’s new today?). It accused Fiji citizens (and especially Fijians of Indian descent) of dominating USP positions.
Affronted by the unfair and racist attacks, dozens of Fiji academic staff signed public petitions (I urge The Fiji Times readers to read the last paragraph and the many signatures, which include Vijay Naidu, Rajesh Chandra, Subramani, Dick Northcott, Steven Ratuva, Leba Savu, Judith Titoko and many others).
One junior economist then also wrote a comprehensive reply (Fiji Sun of October 30 1986) “Fiji staff at university upset
In early USP, while the largest number of students and staff were from Fiji, the senior academic and administrative staff were expatriates, usually of the same nationality as the Vice-Chancellor at the time.
with expatriates”).
He pointed out the blatant unfairness to Fiji staff and racism in claiming that there was no benefit in replacing expatriate white academic staff with “Fiji Indians and Asians”, even though their qualifications were from the same Australian, New Zealand or British universities as the expatriates.
USP stakeholders should be clear that Fiji has never gained an unfair advantage with respect to USP staff, students and graduates, and facilities.
The staff bogey
For decades, Fiji has been accused of
hogging academic staff positions at USP. The then powerful Pacific Islanders and expatriate clique USP fought tooth and nail to prevent Fiji citizens from being appointed to high levels, even though that was due entirely to the relatively large number of Fiji graduates with higher qualifications and experience.
One sad result of that past anti-Fiji bias may have been that the more recent Fiji senior leadership believed that they owed their appointments to the intervention of the Bainimarama Government, meaning that they were prepared to overlook their wishes for selective academic and student censorship.